Concentrations of Particulate Matter Emitted from Large Cattle Feedlots in Kansas

Figures & data

Figure 1. (a) Wind rose statistics from May 2006 to October 2009 (hourly data from total time period); (b) schematic diagram showing sampler locations at feedlot KS1.

Table 1. Numbers of acceptable sampling runs and 24-hr values for the low-volume samplers

		Feedlot KS1		Feedlot KS2
		Number of Acceptable Sampling Runs	Number of 24-hr Values	Number of Acceptable Sampling Runs	Number of 24-hr Values
Downwind (typically north sampling location)	PM2.5	47	21	11	3
	PM10	69	28	10	3
	TSP	71	28	6	3
Upwind (typically south sampling location)	PM2.5	44	20	6	2
	PM10	61	28	10	3
	TSP	59	27	0	0
Net (downwind − upwind)	PM2.5	30	15	4	2
	PM10	49	25	8	2
	TSP	49	25	0	0

Table 2. Numbers of acceptable sampling runs for each month for feedlot KS1

	TSP		PM10			PM2.5
Month	Downwind	Net	Downwind	Net	24-hr Concentration ≥150 μg/m^3	Downwind	Net	24-hr Concentration ≥35 μg/m^3	With Rain	With Sprinkling
01	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	0
02	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
03	4	3	4	3	1	2	2	1	0	0
04	3	3	4	1	0	2	1	0	0	0
05	7	5	7	5	1	5	4	1	1	3
06	7	5	7	4	0	2	1	0	0	6
07	16	8	15	9	1	11	7	1	0	17
08	12	9	10	8	1	10	7	1	1	7
09	7	5	7	6	0	6	2	0	1	4
10	6	6	7	6	0	4	3	0	1	2
11	4	4	4	4	0	2	2	0	0	0
12	3	0	2	1	0	2	0	0	0	0
Total	71	49	69	49	4	47	30	4	4	39

Table 3. Downwind and upwind 24-hr PM concentration values

		Feedlot KS1			Feedlot KS2
		n ^a	Mean (μg/m^3)	SE^b (μg/m^3)	n ^a	Mean (μg/m^3)	SE^b (μg/m^3)
Downwind	PM2.5	21	34	7	3	24	9
Sampling	PM10	28	105	14	3	88	12
Location	TSP	28	262	42	3	185	23
Upwind	PM2.5	20	16	1	2	11	7
Sampling	PM10	28	39	5	3	73	55
Location	TSP	27	58	7	—	—	—
Net (downwind − upwind)	PM2.5	15	25	13	2	17	4
	PM10	25	76	16	2	80	13
	TSP	25	201	40	—	—	—
Notes: ^a n represents the number of 24-hr values. ^bSE represents the standard error.

Figure 2. Mean monthly PM concentrations of (a) TSP, (b) PM₁₀, and (c) PM_2.5 at feedlot KS1.

Figure 3. Cumulative frequencies of 24-hr concentration versus 24-hr concentration for (a) downwind values and (b) net values at feedlot KS1.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of PM concentrations during the day and night sampling periods for feedlot KS1

		Day Sampling Period (6 a.m. to 6 p.m.)			Night Sampling Period (6 p.m. to 6 a.m.)
		n	Mean (μg/m^3)	SE (μg/m^3)	n	Mean (μg/m^3)	S.E. (μg/m^3)
Downwind	PM2.5*	23	25^a	6	22	36^a	7
Sampling	PM10*	37	104^a	13	30	111^a	18
Location	TSP*	39	286^a	50	30	322^a	57
Upwind	PM2.5*	22	21^a	5	21	17^a	2
Sampling	PM10*	38	57^a	12	22	37^a	6
Location	TSP*	36	124^a	34	23	77^a	18
Net (downwind − upwind)	PM2.5*	11	13^a	6	16	19^a	6
	PM10*	27	71^a	12	21	74^a	18
	TSP*	27	202^a	50	23	237^b	47
Note: *Row means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of significance.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of PM ratios at the downwind and upwind sampling locations for feedlot KS1

		Feedlot KS1		Urban Areas (Published Data)
		Downwind	Upwind
PM2.5/PM10	n	46	44
	Mean*	0.29^a	0.44^b	0.5431
	SE	0.02	0.04
PM2.5/TSP	n	46	42
	Mean*	0.10^a	0.28^b	0.3031
	SE	0.01	0.03
PM10/TSP	n	67	55
	Mean*	0.41^a	0.54^b	0.5032
	SE	0.02	0.03
Note: *Row means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of significance.

Figure 4. Frequencies of mass fractions at the (a) downwind and (b) upwind sampling locations of feedlot KS1.

Table 6. Correlation matrix of concentrations and ratios for the downwind and upwind sampling locations of feedlot KS1

		PM2.5	PM10	TSP	PM2.5/PM10	PM2.5/TSP	PM10/TSP
Downwind	PM2.5	1.00	0.89*	0.91*	0.21	0.02	−0.33*
	PM10		1.00	0.91*	−0.17	−0.26	−0.14
	TSP			1.00	0.03	−0.26	−0.40
	PM2.5/PM10				1.00	0.71*	−0.16
	PM2.5/TSP					1.00	0.51*
	PM10/TSP						1.00
Upwind	PM2.5	1.00	0.74*	0.89*	0.25	−0.02	−0.30
	PM10		1.00	0.69*	−0.26	−0.46*	0.15
	TSP			1.00	−0.14	−0.39*	−0.25
	PM2.5/PM10				1.00	0.82*	0.10
	PM2.5/TSP					1.00	0.60*
	PM10/TSP						1.00
Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 7. Correlation of concentrations and ratios for the downwind sampling location of feedlot KS1 with weather conditions and amount of water applied by the sprinkler system

	n	Humidity (%)	Temperature (ºC)	Wind speed (m/sec)	Precipitation (mm)	Pen Surface Moisture Content (%)	Amount of Water Used by Sprinkler (mm)
ln(PM2.5)	47	−0.02	0.01	0.20	0.22	−0.40*	0.28
ln(PM10)	69	−0.38*	0.33*	0.23	−0.11	−0.67*	0.39*
ln(TSP)	71	−0.29*	0.24*	0.27*	−0.13	−0.60*	0.37*
PM2.5/PM10	46	0.37*	−0.15	0.09	0.18	0.43*	−0.14
PM2.5/TSP	46	0.24	−0.01	0.08	0.02	0.49*	−0.04
PM10/TSP	67	−0.04	0.12	−0.18	0.09	0.04	−0.13
Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 8. Factors selected in backward selection model for the concentrations and ratios at the downwind sampling location of feedlot KS1^a

			Parameter Estimates
	R ^2	Intercept	Humidity (%)	Temperature (°C)	Wind Speed (m/sec)	Pen Surface Moisture Content (%)	Amount of Water Used by Sprinkler (mm)
ln(PM2.5)	0.16	3.6	—	—	—	−0.03	—
ln(PM10)	0.51	6.1	−0.01	−0.02	—	−0.05	0.2
ln(TSP)	0.44	5.8	—	—	0.05	−0.05	—
PM2.5/PM10	0.24	−2.3	0.01	—	—	0.02	—
PM2.5/TSP	0.22	−3.0	—	—	—	0.03	0.1
Note: ^aAll variables left in the regression models are significant at the 0.1 level.

Figure 5. Net 24-hr mass concentrations of (a) TSP, (b) PM₁₀, and (c) PM_2.5 versus pen surface moisture content at feedlot KS1.

Lall , R. , Kendall , M. , Ito , K. and Thurston , G.D. 2004 . Estimation of Historical Annual PM2.5 Exposure for Health Effects Assessment . Atmos. Environ. , 38 : 5217 – 5226 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cicero-Pernandez , P. , Thistlewaite , W.A. , Falcon , Y.I. and Guzman , I.M. 1993 . TSP, PM10 And PM10/TSP Ratios in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area: A Temporal and Spatial Approach . J. Expo. Anal Environ. Epiderniol. , 3 ( Suppl. 1 ) : 1 – 14 .

 Google Scholar