Mitigation of Gaseous Emissions from Swine Manure with the Surficial Application of Biochars
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Mitigation of odor
- Reduction of H2S, NH3, GHG, and VOCs emissions
- How long biochar treatment lasts after application to manure surface.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Manure
2.2. Biochar Properties
2.3. The Experimental Stand Description
2.4. Experimental Design
2.5. Gas Concentration Measurements
2.5.1. Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide
2.5.2. Greenhouse Gases
2.5.3. Volatile Organic Compounds
2.6. Statistical Analysis
2.7. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Observation of Biochar Layer Interaction with Swine Manure
3.2. Effectiveness of RO and HAP Biochar Treatment of Gaseous Emissions from Stored Swine Manure
4. Discussion
4.1. Effect of Biochar Treatment on Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide
4.2. Effects of Biochar Treatment on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.3. Effect on Volatile Organic Compounds
5. Conclusions
- significant percent reduction (% R) that ranged from 19–39% for NH3 in all three trials, and the types of manure tested.
- H2S was mitigated (16–23% reduction), but not significantly for all trials.
- CH4 was generated (−26 to −104%), but not significantly for all trials. CO2 trended toward mitigation (0–25%), but not significantly for all trials. There was no significant effect on N2O (−1~7%).
- Overall, the phenolic VOCs had relatively high % R in most trials. Significant (66–78%) reductions for p-cresol were observed for all trials. The % R for skatole ranged from 29–72%, but not significantly for all trials. The % R for phenol and indole ranged from (−13–94%) and (−11–84%) but not significantly for all trials. The % R for isobutyric acid ranged from (9–26%) but not significantly for all trials.
- Finally, the odor was mitigated in all trials (17~30%) but not significantly for all trials.
- the % R for NH3 ranged from 4–21% but not significantly for all trials.
- H2S was mitigated (2–22% reduction), but not significantly for all trials.
- CH4 was generated (−41to −221%), but not significantly for all trials. CO2 trended toward generation (−57–2%), but not significantly for all trials. There was no significant effect on N2O (−6–46%).
- Overall, the phenolic VOCs had relatively high % R in most trials. Significant (91–97%) reductions for p-cresol were observed for all trials. The % R for skatole ranged from 74–95% and was significant for all trials. The % R for phenol and indole ranged from (60–99%) and (29–94%) but not significantly for all trials. The % R for isobutyric acid ranged from (8-88%) but not significantly for all trials.
- Finally, the odor was generated in all trials (−12 to −59%) but not significantly for all trials. It is important to mention that the odor measurement does not capture odor character.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- University of Massachusetts, Amherst. The Center for Agriculture, Food and the Environment. Available online: https://ag.umass.edu/crops-dairy-livestock-equine/fact-sheets/air-quality-issues-for-dairy-operations (accessed on 24 December 2019).
- EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Liu, Z.; Powers, W.; Murphy, J.; Maghirang, R. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from swine production facilities in North America: A meta-analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 1656–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taylor, C.N.W. Examining E-Extension: Diffusion, Disruption, and Rate of Adoption Among Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. Professionals. Dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Maurer, D.L.; Koziel, J.A.; Harmon, J.D.; Hoff, S.J.; Rieck-Hinz, A.M.; Andersen, D.S. Summary of performance data for technologies to control gaseous, odor, and particulate emissions from livestock operations: Air management practices assessment tool (AMPAT). Data Brief. 2016, 7, 1413–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maurer, D.L.; Koziel, J.A.; Bruning, K.; Parker, D.B. Farm-scale testing of soybean peroxidase and calcium peroxide for surficial swine manure treatment and mitigation of odorous VOCs, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 166, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maurer, D.L.; Koziel, J.A.; Bruning, K.; Parker, D.B. Pilot-scale testing of renewable biocatalyst for swine manure treatment and mitigation of odorous VOCs, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 150, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cai, L.; Koziel, J.A.; Liang, Y.; Nguyen, A.T.; Xin, H. Evaluation of Zeolite for Control of Odorants Emissions from Simulated Poultry Manure Storage. J. Environ. Qual. 2007, 36, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kalus, K.; Opaliński, S.; Maurer, D.; Rice, S.; Koziel, J.A.; Korczyński, M.; Dobrzański, Z.; Kołacz, R.; Gutarowska, B. Odour reducing microbial-mineral additive for poultry manure treatment. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parker, D.; Rhoades, M.B.; Koziel, J.A.; Baek, B.-H.; Waldrip, H.; Todd, R. Urease Inhibitor for Reducing Ammonia Emissions from an Open-Lot Beef Cattle Feedyard in the Texas High Plains. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2016, 32, 823–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Białowiec, A.; Micuda, M.; Koziel, J.A. Waste to Carbon: Densification of Torrefied Refuse-Derived Fuel. Energies 2018, 11, 3233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pulka, J.; Manczarski, P.; Koziel, J.A.; Białowiec, A. Torrefaction of Sewage Sludge: Kinetics and Fuel Properties of Biochars. Energies 2019, 12, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Świechowski, K.; Stegenta-Dąbrowska, S.; Liszewski, M.; Bąbelewski, P.; Koziel, J.A.; Białowiec, A. Oxytree Pruned Biomass Torrefaction: Process Kinetics. Materials 2019, 12, 3334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stępień, P.; Serowik, M.; Koziel, J.A.; Białowiec, A. Waste to Carbon: Estimating the Energy Demand for Production of Carbonized Refuse-Derived Fuel. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Syguła, E.; Koziel, J.A.; Białowiec, A. Proof-of-Concept of Spent Mushrooms Compost Torrefaction—Studying the Process Kinetics and the Influence of Temperature and Duration on the Calorific Value of the Produced Biocoal. Energies 2019, 12, 3060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stępień, P.; Świechowski, K.; Hnat, M.; Kugler, S.; Stegenta-Dąbrowska, S.; Koziel, J.A.; Manczarski, P.; Białowiec, A. Waste to Carbon: Biocoal from Elephant Dung as New Cooking Fuel. Energies 2019, 12, 4344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peters, J.F.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Biomass Pyrolysis for Biochar or Energy Applications? A Life Cycle Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 5195–5202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shackley, S.; Russychaert, G.; Zwart, K.; Glaser, B. Biochar in European Soils and Agriculture Science and Practice; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 6–7. [Google Scholar]
- Mohamed, W.S.; Hammam, A.A. Poultry manure-derived biochar as a soil amendment and fertilizer for sandy soils under arid conditions. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 2019, 59, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Wang, J.; Bai, S.H.; Zhang, Y.; Teng, Y.; Xu, Z. Assisted phytoremediation of a co-contaminated soil with biochar amendment: Contaminant removals and bacterial community properties. Geoderma 2019, 348, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalus, K.; Koziel, J.A.; Opaliński, S. A Review of Biochar Properties and Their Utilization in Crop Agriculture and Livestock Production. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maurer, D.L.; Koziel, J.A.; Kalus, K.; Andersen, D.S.; Opaliński, S. Pilot-Scale Testing of Non-Activated Biochar for Swine Manure Treatment and Mitigation of Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Odorous Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Sustainability 2017, 9, 929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dougherty, B.W.; Gray, M.; Johnson, M.G.; Kleber, M. Can Biochar Covers Reduce Emissions from Manure Lagoons While Capturing Nutrients? J. Environ. Qual. 2017, 46, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Y.; Xu, Y.; Yu, Y.; Xie, Z.; Lin, X. Mechanisms of biochar decreasing methane emission from Chinese paddy soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 46, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brassard, P.; Godbout, S.; Palacios, J.; Jeanne, T.; Hogue, R.; Dubé, P.; Limousy, L.; Raghavan, V. Effect of six engineered biochars on GHG emissions from two agricultural soils: A short-term incubation study. Geoderma 2018, 327, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogovska, N.; Laird, D.A.; Cruse, R.; Fleming, P.; Parkin, T.B.; Meek, D. Impact of Biochar on Manure Carbon Stabilization and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 871–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Troy, S.M.; Lawlor, P.G.; Flynn, C.J.O.; Healy, M.G. Impact of biochar addition to soil on greenhouse gas emissions following pig manure application. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 60, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Komnitsas, K.; Zaharaki, D. Morphology of Modified Biochar and Its Potential for Phenol Removal from Aqueous Solutions. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, R.; Wang, J.J.; Zhou, B.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, S.; Lei, S.; Xiao, R. Simultaneous capture removal of phosphate, ammonium and organic substances by MgO impregnated biochar and its potential use in swine wastewater treatment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hervy, M.; Minh, D.P.; Gérente, C.; Weiss-Hortala, E.; Nzihou, A.; Villot, A.; Le Coq, L. H2S removal from syngas using wastes pyrolysis chars. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 334, 2179–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shang, G.; Li, Q.; Liu, L.; Chen, P.; Huang, X. Adsorption of hydrogen sulfide by biochars derived from pyrolysis of different agricultural/forestry wastes. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2015, 66, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brewer, C.E.; Hall, E.T.; Schmidt-Rohr, K.; Laird, D.A.; Brown, R.C.; Zygourakis, K. Temperature and reaction atmosphere effects on the properties of corn stover biochar. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2016, 36, 696–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J. A review of microbiology in swine manure odor control. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 78, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meiirkhanuly, Z.; Koziel, J.A.; Białowiec, A.; Banik, C.; Brown, R.C. The-Proof-of-Concept of Biochar Floating Cover Influence on Water pH. Water 2019, 11, 1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meiirkhanuly, Z.; Koziel, J.A.; Bialowiec, A.; Banik, C.; Brown, R.C. The Proof-of-the Concept of Biochar Floating Cover Influence on Swine Manure pH: Implications for Mitigation of Gaseous Emissions From Area Sources. Front. Chem. 2020, 8, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, J.; Compton, R.G.; Cooper, J.A.; Dryfe, R.A.W.; Fisher, A.C.; Davies, C.L.; Walters, M.K. Hydrodynamic Voltammetry with Channel Electrodes: Microdisk Electrodes. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 10942–10947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, J. (Ed.) Recommended Methods for Manure Analysis 2003. University of Wisconsin Extension Publication A3769. Madison, WI. Available online: https://agsci.psu.edu/aasl/manure-testing/methods (accessed on 24 December 2019).
- Leege, P.B. Introduction of Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost. In Beneficial Co-Utilization of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial by-Products; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 1998; pp. 269–282. [Google Scholar]
- Bakshi, S.; Banik, C.; Rathke, S.J.; Laird, D.A. Arsenic sorption on zero-valent iron-biochar complexes. Water Res. 2018, 137, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, H.N.; You, S.-J.; Chao, H.-P. Effect of pyrolysis temperatures and times on the adsorption of cadmium onto orange peel derived biochar. Waste Manag. Res. 2015, 34, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iowa State University. The Material Analysis and Research Laboratory of the Iowas State University Office of Biotechnology. Available online: http://www.marl.iastate.edu/sem.html (accessed on 24 December 2019).
- Rover, M.R.; Smith, R.; Brown, R.C. Enabling biomass combustion and co-firing through the use of Lignocol. Fuel 2018, 211, 312–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wi, J.; Lee, S.; Kim, E.; Lee, M.; Koziel, J.A.; Ahn, H. Evaluation of Semi-Continuous Pit Manure Recharge System Performance on Mitigation of Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from a Swine Finishing Barn. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, S.; Cai, L.; Koziel, J.A.; Hoff, S.J.; Schmidt, D.R.; Clanton, C.J.; Jacobson, L.D.; Parker, D.; Heber, A.J. Field air sampling and simultaneous chemical and sensory analysis of livestock odorants with sorbent tubes and GC–MS/olfactometry. Sens. Actuators B: Chem. 2010, 146, 427–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heikkinen, J.; Keskinen, R.; Soinne, H.; Hyväluoma, J.; Nikama, J.; Wikberg, H.; Källi, A.; Siipola, V.; Melkior, T.; Dupont, C.; et al. Possibilities to improve soil aggregate stability using biochars derived from various biomasses through slow pyrolysis, hydrothermal carbonization, or torrefaction. Geoderma 2019, 344, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinney, T.J.; Masiello, C.A.; Dugan, B.; Hockaday, W.C.; Dean, M.R.; Zygourakis, K.; Barnes, R.T. Hydrologic properties of biochars produced at different temperatures. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 41, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takaya, C.A.; Parmar, K.R.; Fletcher, L.A.; Ross, A.B. Biomass-Derived Carbonaceous Adsorbents for Trapping Ammonia. Agriculture 2019, 9, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shang, G.; Shen, G.; Wang, T.; Chen, Q. Effectiveness and mechanisms of hydrogen sulfide adsorption by camphor-derived biochar. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2012, 62, 873–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayiania, M.; Martin Carbajal-Gamarra, F.; Garcia-Perez, T.; Frear, C.; Suliman, W.; Garcia-Perez, M. Production and characterization of H2S and PO43− carbonaceous adsorbents from anaerobic digested fibers. Biomass Bioener. 2019, 120, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiang, T.; Schuchardt, F.; Li, G.; Guo, R.; Zhao, Y. Effect of C/N ratio, aeration rate and moisture content on ammonia and greenhouse gas emission during the composting. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 23, 1754–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.; Ren, L.; Li, G.; Chen, T.; Guo, R. Influence of aeration on CH4, N2O and NH3 emissions during aerobic composting of a chicken manure and high C/N waste mixture. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agyarko-Mintah, E.; Cowie, A.; Singh, B.P.; Joseph, S.; Van Zwieten, L.; Cowie, A.; Harden, S.; Smillie, R. Biochar increases nitrogen retention and lowers greenhouse gas emissions when added to composting poultry litter. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Xing, W.; Xue, Q.; Yan, Z.; Zhuo, S.; Qiao, S. Critical role of small micropores in high CO2 uptake. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2013, 15, 2523–2529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creamer, A.E.; Gao, B.; Zimmerman, A.; Harris, W. Biomass-facilitated production of activated magnesium oxide nanoparticles with extraordinary CO2 capture capacity. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 334, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Gao, B.; Zheng, Y.; Hu, X.; Creamer, A.E.; Annable, M.D.; Li, Y.C. Biochar for volatile organic compound (VOC) removal: Sorption performance and governing mechanisms. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.; Zhang, N. Facile synthesis of porous carbons from silica-rich rice husk char for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) sorption. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 282, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.-G.; Hong, S.-H.; Hong, S.-G.; Choi, J.-W.; Park, S.-J. Production of Biochar from Food Waste and its Application for Phenol Removal from Aqueous Solution. WaterAirSoil Pollut. 2019, 230, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.; Koziel, J.A.; Banik, C.; Ma, H.; Lee, M.; Wi, J.; Meiirkhanuly, Z.; Andersen, D.; Białowiec, A.; Parker, D. Emissions from Swine Manure Treated with Current Products for Mitigation of Odors and Reduction of NH3, H2S, VOC, and GHG Emissions. Data 2020, 5, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.; Koziel, J.A.; Białowiec, A.; Lee, M.; Ma, H.; Li, P.; Meiirkhanuly, Z.; Brown, R.C. The Impact of Surficial Biochar Treatment on Acute H2S Emissions during Swine Manure Agitation before Pump-Out: Proof-of-the-Concept. Catalysts 2020, 10, 940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banik, C.; Koziel, J.; De, M.; Bonds, D.; Chen, B.; Singh, A.; Licht, M. Soil Nutrients and Carbon Dynamics in the Presence of Biochar-swine Manure Mixture Under Controlled Leaching Experiment Using a Midwestern USA Soil. Preprints 2020, 2020090551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Properties | AG 450 (Trial 1) (Pit Storage) | ISF (Trial 2) (Pit Storage) | PF (Trial 3) (Outdoor Storage) |
---|---|---|---|
pH | 7.47 | 8.00 | 7.55 |
Total solids (%) | 2.64 | 4.07 | 2.60 |
Total volatile solids (%) | 66.67 | 71.01 | 66.54 |
Total Nitrogen (%) | 16.10 | 13.37 | 11.88 |
Trial | RO Biochar Dose (kg∙m−2) | HAP Biochar Dose (kg∙m−2) | Control | Manure Source | Trial Length (d) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.65 | 2.0 | 0 | AG 450 | 30 |
2 | 1.65 | 2.0 | 0 | ISF | 30 |
3 | 1.65 | 2.0 | 0 | PF | 30 |
Trial | Treatment | pH | Total Solids (%) | Total Volatile Solids (%) | Total Nitrogen (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Control | 9.16 | 2.17 | 48.85 | 10.65 |
RO | 9 | 8.16 | 84.44 | 3.13 | |
HAP | 9.03 | 4.87 | 60.78 | 4.78 | |
2 | Control | 9.07 | 4.08 | 66.18 | 7.57 |
RO | 8.97 | 10.64 | 85.62 | 3.32 | |
HAP | 8.99 | 8.81 | 68.56 | 4.43 | |
3 | Control | 9.07 | 2.41 | 59.75 | 7.47 |
RO | 8.77 | 4.29 | 63.4 | 3.89 | |
HAP | 8.75 | 8.33 | 86.19 | 2.61 |
Gas or Odor | RO Biochar Avg % R * (T1/T2/T3) ** | HAP Biochar Avg % R * (T1/T2/T3) ** | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First week | First 2 weeks | First 3 weeks | Entire Trial | First week | First 2 weeks | First 3 weeks | Entire Trial | |
NH3 | 38 (41/28/55) | 30 (33/20/49) | 28 (26/21/43) | 25 (19/21/39) | 30 (38/29/18) | 24 (26/27/14) | 19 (22/23/8) | 16 (18/21/4) |
H2S | 23 (20/37/9) | 26 (23/32/23) | 27 (22/33/25) | 20 (23/19/16) | 16 (10/29/7) | 20 (8/35/14) | 19 (20/22/11) | 16 (22/19/2) |
CH4 | 54 (51/57/52) | 33 (26/37/39) | −38 (−6/−88/−20) | −54 (−26/−104/−32) | 5 (13/15/−38) | −27 (−30/−8/−57) | −69 (−35/−35/−194) | −82 (−55/−41/−221) |
CO2 | 16 (0/22/25) | 19 (1/24/31) | 16 (0/20/29) | 14 (0/17/25) | −31 (−26/14/−114) | −19 (−15/17/−80) | −18 (−11/7/−61) | −15 (2/0/−57) |
N2O | 8 (6/11/7) | 0 (5/11/−10) | 3 (3/8/−1) | 3 (4/7/−1) | 9 (1/12/12) | 1 (3/8/−6) | 8 (1/9/13) | 23 (−6/3/46) |
Phenol | 85 (−37/91/84) | 84 (8/85/84) | 84 (−13/83/84) | 84 (−13/94/84) | 98 (11/97/98) | 98 (25/96/98) | 98 (26/95/99) | 99 (60/83/99) |
p−cresol | 71 (69/43/72) | 79 (21/65/80) | 78 (77/64/79) | 78 (77/66/78) | 94 (90/91/95) | 94 (89/91/94) | 93 (89/93/94) | 97 (97/91/97) |
Skatole | 60 (70/60/55) | 49 (77/62/27) | 48 (72/62/29) | 47 (72/66/29) | 91 (90/94/90) | 91 (88/95/91) | 90 (88/89/91) | 93 (95/74/93) |
Indole | 41 (−68/69/36) | 84 (2/68/88) | 82 (−13/74/86) | 79 (−11/67/84) | 84 (89/90/80) | 93 (81/92/94) | 92 (81/92/92) | 73 (94/92/29) |
Isobutyric acid | −23 (−61/−37/19) | 18 (24/−12/33) | 17 (8/11/28) | 19 (9/18/26) | 31 (32/8/47) | 15 (40/−44/32) | 17 (39/−6/23) | 61 (88/8/47) |
Odor | 12 (−13/25/22) | 17 (17/15/19) | 23 (19/20/32) | 22 (17/21/30) | 18 (−1/6/43) | 15 (15/17/11) | −2 (15/−12/−12) | −30 (−31/−12/−59) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Meiirkhanuly, Z.; Koziel, J.A.; Chen, B.; Białowiec, A.; Lee, M.; Wi, J.; Banik, C.; Brown, R.C.; Bakshi, S. Mitigation of Gaseous Emissions from Swine Manure with the Surficial Application of Biochars. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 1179. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11111179
Meiirkhanuly Z, Koziel JA, Chen B, Białowiec A, Lee M, Wi J, Banik C, Brown RC, Bakshi S. Mitigation of Gaseous Emissions from Swine Manure with the Surficial Application of Biochars. Atmosphere. 2020; 11(11):1179. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11111179
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeiirkhanuly, Zhanibek, Jacek A. Koziel, Baitong Chen, Andrzej Białowiec, Myeongseong Lee, Jisoo Wi, Chumki Banik, Robert C. Brown, and Santanu Bakshi. 2020. "Mitigation of Gaseous Emissions from Swine Manure with the Surficial Application of Biochars" Atmosphere 11, no. 11: 1179. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11111179