Concentration, size, and density of total suspended particulates at the air exhaust of concentrated animal feeding operations

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of visited animal farms

Farm^a	Building Size (L × W × H, m)	No. of Animals Per Building (Body Weight Per Animal)	Floor Type	Feeder (Dry/Wet)	Manure Storage	Ventilation	Cleaning Cycle
A	60 × 12 × 2.4	1600–1800 (10–60 kg)	Fully slatted	Wet feeder	Deep pit	Mechanical	6 months
B	67 × 25 × 2.5	2500–2700 (5–100 kg)	Fully slatted	Wet feeder	Deep pit	Mechanical	6 months
C	55 × 35 × 2.2	2400–3000 (10–45 kg)	Fully Slatted	Wet feeder	Deep pit	Mechanical	6 month
D	15 × 6 × 2.4	26 crates (200 kg)	Partially slatted	Dry feeder	Shallow pit	Mechanical	3 weeks
E	25 × 13 × 2.4	52 crates (200 kg)	Partially slatted	Dry feeder	Shallow pit	Mechanical	3 weeks
F	18 × 8 × 2.4	28 crates (200 kg)	Partially slatted	Dry feeder	Shallow pit	Mechanical	3 weeks
G	300 × 20 × 2.5	2350–2450 (180 kg)	Fully slatted	Wet feeder	Deep pit	Mechanical	6 months
H	180 × 18 × 2.5	2050–2200 (180 kg)	Fully slatted	Wet feeder	Deep pit	Mechanical	6 months
I	110 × 30 × 2.5	2000–2070 (180 kg)	Fully slatted	Wet feeder	Deep pit	Mechanical	6 months
J	140 × 20 × 12	240,730–262,300 (1.7 kg)	Concrete	Dry feeder	Manure belt	Mechanical	2 days
K	170 × 23 × 10	440,100–449,800 (1.6 kg)	Concrete	Dry feeder	Manure belt	Mechanical	1 day
L	110 × 16 × 4	74,000–78,000 (1.6 kg)	Concrete	Dry feeder	Manure belt	Mechanical	2 days
M	34 × 12 × 3.0	4000–4300 (1.5–20 kg)	Wood shavings, soils, and litters	Dry feeder	Bedding pack	Natural	4 months
N	121 × 15 × 4.5	4500–5000 (10–20 kg)	Wood shavings, soils, and litters	Dry feeder	Bedding pack	Natural	6 months
O	77 × 25 × 3.7	4500–6000 (3–20 kg)	Wood shavings, soils, and litters	Dry feeder	Bedding pack	Natural	5 months

Notes: ^aFive types of animal farms were visited, including swine finishing (A, B, C), swine farrowing (D, E, F), swine gestation (G, H, I), laying hen (J, K, L), and tom turkey (M, N, O).

Figure 1. Total suspended particulate (TSP) concentrations at five types of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Data presented are average concentration, and error bar represents standard deviation. The dash lines are the human exposure limits proposed by Dr. Kelly Donham and his colleagues (Donham et al., 1995, 2000) for swine (2.5 mg m⁻³) and poultry (2.4 mg m⁻³) houses, respectively.

Figure 2. Density of deposited particles as a surrogate for total suspended particulates (TSP).

Table 2. Particle size distribution measurements at concentrated animal feeding operations in the United States

References	Animal Facilities	MMD (µm)^a	GSD	Particle Size Analyzers
This study	Swine finishing	15.7 ± 1.0 (19.7)	2.32 ± 0.34	Horiba LA-300
	Swine farrowing	18.0 ± 1.1 (23.8)	2.22 ± 0.25
	Swine gestation	19.3 ± 2.7 (24.2)	2.28 ± 0.22
	Laying hen	17.5 ± 0.9 (22.4)	2.07 ± 0.25
	Tom turkey	26.5 ± 4.6 (34.5)	2.35 ± 0.25
Maghirang and Puma (1997)	Swine	(13)	3.0	Cascade impactor
Sweeten et al. (1998)	Cattle feedlot	6–11	2.1	Coulter multisizer
Predicala et al. (2001)	Swine	(18)	N/A	Cascade impactor
Redwine et al. (2002)	Chicken broiler	24–27	N/A	Coulter multisizer
Wang-Li et al. (2013)	Laying hen	19.2	2.6	Laser diffraction particle size analyzer

Notes: ^aValues in the parenthesis are mass median aerodynamic diameters; outside are mass median equivalent spherical diameters.

Figure 3. Effects of housing facility type and season on the particle size distribution of collected total suspended particulate (TSP) samples: (a) mass median equivalent spherical diameter (MMD) and (b) geometric standard deviation (GSD).

Table 3. Estimated PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 mass fractions in collected TSP samples (average ± standard deviation)

	PM10 Fraction (%)			PM2.5 Fraction (%)
Operation Type	Winter	Spring/Fall	Summer	Winter	Spring/Fall	Summer
Swine finishing	21.8 ± 0.6	20.6 ± 6.0	21.0 ± 1.3	6.1 ± 0.6	5.0 ± 4.4	6.0 ± 1.1
Swine farrowing	19.8 ± 3.0	16.5 ± 3.8	11.5 ± 3.1	6.1 ± 1.5	5.2 ± 2.5	3.8 ± 1.2
Swine gestation	20.3 ± 2.5	16.8 ± 3.5	13.6 ± 6.7	5.2 ± 0.4	4.8 ± 1.5	4.1 ± 2.5
Laying hen	16.8 ± 4.2	15.7 ± 3.7	15.5 ± 4.4	4.8 ± 0.8	4.1 ± 0.4	4.0 ± 2.3
Tom turkey	16.8 ± 7.7	11.4 ± 2.2	9.8 ± 0.5	4.6 ± 3.2	3.0 ± 1.0	2.6 ± 0.2

Table 4. Effects of feeder type on TSP concentration, particle density, and particle size (average ± standard deviation)

Feeder Type	Dry	Wet
TSP concentration (mg m^−3)	2.44 ± 3.15	0.79 ± 0.48
Particle density (g cm^−3)	1.69 ± 0.12	1.58 ± 0.11
Mass median diameter (µm)^a	20.6 ± 5.0	17.5 ± 2.7
Geometric standard deviation	2.22 ± 0.27	2.30 ± 0.28

Notes: ^aMass median equivalent spherical diameter.

Donham, K.J., S.J. Reynolds, P. Whitten, J.A. Merchant, L. Burmeister, and W.J. Popendorf. 1995. Respiratory dysfunction in swine production facility workers: Dose-response relationships of environmental exposures and pulmonary function. Am. J. Ind. Med. 27:405–418. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0274

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Donham, K.J., D. Cumro, S.J. Reynolds, and J.A. Merchant. 2000. Dose-response relationships between occupational aerosol exposures and cross-shift declines of lung function in poultry workers: Recommendations for exposure limits. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 42:260–269. doi:10.1097/00043764-200003000-00006

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Maghirang, R.G., and M.C. Puma. 1997. Airborne and settled dust levels in a swine house. ASHRAE Trans. 103:309–315.

 Google Scholar

Sweeten, J.M., C.B. Parnell, B.W. Shaw, and B.W. Auvermann. 1998. Particle size distribution of cattle feedlot dust emission. Trans. ASAE 41:1477–1481. doi:10.13031/2013.17297

 Google Scholar

Predicala, B.Z., R.G. Maghirang, S.B. Jerez, J.E. Urban, and R.D. Goodband. 2001. Dust and bioaerosol concentrations in two swine-finishing buildings in Kansas. Trans. ASAE 44:1291–1298. doi:10.13031/2013.6434

 Google Scholar

Redwine, J.S., R.E. Lacey, S. Mukhtar, and J.B. Carey. 2002. Concentration and emissions of ammonia and particulate matter in tunnel ventilated broiler houses under summer conditions in Texas. Trans. ASAE 45:1101–1109. doi:10.13031/2013.9943

 Google Scholar

Wang-Li, L., Z. Cao, Q. Li, Z. Liu, and D.B. Beasley. 2013. Concentration and particle size distribution of particulate matter inside tunnel-ventilated high-rise layer operation houses. Atmos. Environ. 66:8–16. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.03.064

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar