Development of an Improved Process-Based Ammonia Model for

Agricultural Sources

ISSRCUniversity of California at Riverside

University of California at DavisENVIRON

Iowa State University Virginia Tech University

September 26, 2005

Outline

• Introduction

• Model Development (teaser)

• Data Requirements & Sources

• Model Results

NH3 Model Development Team• University of California, Riverside

> Zion Wang> Yinqun Wang> Gail Tonnesen

• University of California, Davis> Prof. Ruihong Zhang> Prof. James Fadel> Prof. Tom Rumsey

• Virginia Tech University> Prof. Jactone Arogo (formerly at North Carolina State University)

• Iowa State University> Prof. Hongwei Xin> Dr. Yi Liang

• ENVIRON International Corporation> Gerard Mansell> Stella Shepard> Mike Masonjones

• Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) & Inter-RPO funds> Sponsoring/Funding Agency

Additional Scientific Contributors

• Ed DePeters (UC Davis)• Ralph Ernst (UC Davis)• Kirk Klasing (UC Davis)• Jim Oltjen (UC Davis)• Kent Parker (UC Davis)• Peter Robinson (UC Davis)• Anders Strathe (Denmark)• Jeff Lorimor (Iowa State Univ.)• Leo Timms (Iowa State Univ.)• Dan Meyer (Iowa State Univ.) • Charlie D. Fulhage (Univ. of

Missouri)

• Richard Koelsch (U. of Nebraska)• Don D. Jones (Purdue Univ.)• Ted Funk (U. of Illinois)• Larry Jacobson (U. of Minnesota)• David Schmidt (U. of Minnesota)• James P. Murphy (Kansas State Univ.)• Joseph Harner (Kansas State Univ.)• Harold Keener (Ohio State Univ.)• Dick Nicolai (South Dakota State Univ.)• Brian Holmes (Univ. of Wisconsin)

Broilers

Layers

Swine

Beef

Dairy

Processes Involved in Ammonia Emissions

• Ammonia generation> Urea hydrolysis via enzymes> Organic nitrogen mineralization via bacteria> Aqueous chemical reactions

• Ammonia transfer from water phase to air phase> Diffusion> Convection mass transfer

Process-based Scientific Approach

• Consider and analyze all physical, chemical and biochemical processes and reactions that take place and influence ammonia emission rate,

• Employ processed based mechanistic and empirical models (new and existing),

• Keep mass balances for the flow of nitrogen through each component of an animal waste management system.

Manure Management Train (MMT)

Animal Housing and Management Practices

Processed Based NH3 Model w/ Commercial Fertilizers

• NH3 Animal Allocation Processor• NH3 Farm Emissions Model:

> Animal excretion model> Housing emissions model> Feedlot emissions model> Storage emissions model, and> Land emissions model

• Animal species considered:> Dairy cows> Beef cattle> Swine> Poultry (layers, broilers, and turkeys)

• Commercial Fertilizers

Process-based NH3 Model Flow Diagram

Farm Emission Model

(FEM)

Animal Allocation Processor

(AAP)

Animal N Excretion

Housing Emission

Storage Emission

Land Application Emission

Animal Allocation Processor

• Distribute county-level animal head counts to defined Manure Management Trains (MMTs)

• Spatially allocate MMTs to grid cells using gridded surrogates (agricultural land)

• Format input data for Farm Emission Model (FEM)

• Actual Farm Data

• Commercial Fertilizers

AAP Input File Name: Post-excretion Storage - BeefEmission Unit TblNH3PostElement Element Description

RECORD TYPE A code that identifies the type of record (SB)COUNTRY_CODE The name of the countryFIPS The FIPS code for the state and countyAJC Alternate Jurisdiction Code. Used to define tribal areas and alternate jurisdictions, such as air management districts, cities/municipalities, and more complex spatial patterns (e.g., transportation corridors).START DATE Start date of the periodEND DATE End date of the periodOpenFeedlotManure Proportion of Manure collected on open feedlot (corrals)StorageLiquidManure Proportion of Manure collected into liquid storageSurfaceArea Surface area of open feedlot (corrals)SolidManure Proportion of manure collected in solid formLiquidManure Proportion of manure collected in liquid formStoragePeriod Total manure storage period before storage is emptiedStorageType Manure storage type, cumulating volume vs. constant volumeStorageGeometry Manure storage geometry (cylindrical, rectangle, or pond)Diameter Diameter of storage if it is circularBottomLength Bottom length of storage if it is a rectangular pondBottomWidth Bottom width of storage if it is a rectangular pondBottomDiameter Bottom diameter of storage if it is a cicular pondSideSlope Side slope of storage if it is a rectangular or circular pondManureMoisture Manure moisture ManurePH Manure pH VolumeEmptied Volume emptied from the storage during the time stepTimeStep Time step (1 hour)MineralizationRate Organic nitrogen mineralization rate at 20° CTempCoeff Temperature coefficient used in the mineralization rate eqn

Farm Emissions Model

Housing Storage

& Treatment

Land ApplicationAnimals

NH3 NH3 NH3

NH3-NOrg N

DairyBeef cattleSwineLayersBroilersTurkeys

Confinement(Mechanically ventilatedor Naturally ventilated)Open Feedlot

Under-floor pitOutside storage (liquid, solid)

- Surface Application

Manure+Water

NH3 Emissions Calculation in FEM

• FEM computes NH3 emissions with animal numbers by each Manure Management Train (MMT) for each grid cell:> Reads in ASCII outputs from AAP> Reads in meteorology file from CONCEPT met tables> Run Animal Excretion Model> Based upon MMTID:

• Run Housing Emissions Model• Run Storage/Feedlot Emissions Model• Run Land Emissions Model

> Output total NH3 based on animal type & MMTID> Output commercial fertilizer NH3 emissions estimates

FEM – Housing Model NH3 Equations

u

umaxuin_u

u

uu

CK

CCC

V

F

dt

dC

u

uwanimalsu ELtN

dt

dV

3600241000

air,gasNNHuTANuuuu

umaxT

TAN CH

kACFH

fkA

VCK

CK

dt

dC3

11

NNHair,gasNNHBambient,gasNNHBB

air,gasNNH ECFCFVdt

dC

3333 1

air,gasNNH

bound,liqNNHuNNH C

H

CkAE 3

33

Process Flow Chart & Decision TreeDairy

D a iry

d a1S C C: 28 0 50 19

M M T ID : 1

L a n d A pp lica tion

w /so lid

se pa ra tion

d a2S C C: 28 0 50 19

M M T ID : 2

L a n d A pp lica tion

w /o u tso lid

se pa ra tion

F lu sh

H o u s ing(b a re f lo o r)

d a3S C C: 28 0 50 21

M M T ID : 4

L a n d A pp lica tion

w /so lid

se pa ra tion

d a4S C C: 28 0 50 21

M M T ID : 3

L a n d A pp lica tion

w /o u tso lid

se pa ra tion

d a5S C C: 28 0 50 21

M M T ID : 6

L a n d A pp lica tion

L a n d A pp lica tion(d a ily)

d a6S C C: 28 0 50 21

M M T ID : 9

L a n d A pp lica tion

S lu rry S to ra ge

d a7S C C: 28 0 50 21

M M T ID : 8

L a n d A pp lica tion

S o lid S tora ge

S c ra pe

H o u s ing(b a re f lo o r)

d a8S C C: 28 0 50 22

M M T ID : 7

L a n d A pp lica tion

H o u s ing(d e ep p it)

d a9S C C: 28 0 50 23

M M T ID : 5 & 10

L a n d A pp lica tion

O u tdo or(p a s tu re)

E xc re tion

Process Flow Chart & Decision TreeSwine

S w ine

sw 1S C C : 28 0 50 39

M M T ID : 4

so lid se p ara tion

sw 2S C C : 28 0 50 39

M M T ID : 1

n o so lid sep a ra tion

S to ra ge(la g oo n)

H o u s ing

sw 3S C C : 28 0 50 47

M M T ID : 2

L a n d A pp lica tion

H o u s ing(d e ep p it)

sw 4S C C : 28 0 50 53

M M T ID : 3

L a n d A pp lica tion

O u tdo or

E xc re tion

Commercial Fertilizer Emissions

• Default (Placeholder) Approach• Fertilizer Amounts by County

• Spatial Allocation Using Gridded Surrogates

• Processed through FEM in anticipation of improved

estimation methodologies dependent on meteorology

and environmental parameters

AAP Input Data Sources• Livestock Data

> 2002 and 1997 Census of Agriculture Data> EPA MMT Distributions> Revised MMT by ISU for Midwest states> FEM Defaults from UCD and ISU> EPA Animal Population Category FEM Categories

from UCD and ISU• Commercial Fertilizers

> Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) NH3 Model> County-level fertilizer application rates by month for

2002

FEM Input/Output• Input Data

> AAP ASCII outputs > Meteorological Data

• Lat/Lon Coordinates• Wind velocity and direction• Relative Humidity, Rain,• Frictional velocity, etc.

• Output Data> Based upon animal type & MMTID> Format:

• CONCEPT ready format• NIF 3.0 format• ASCII csv format

Preliminary Model Results

• Model run for State of Kentucky

• Results for July 6, 2002

• Housing and Storage Only

• Hourly, county-level NH3 Emissions by animal species,

MMT

• Comparison w/ WRAP LU-based NH3 Emission Model

Hourly NH3 Emissions for Kentucky

Housing & Storage Only

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour (GMT)

NH

3 (

kg

/hr)

beef dairyswine Total

Dairy NH3 Emissions by MMT

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour (GMT)

NH

3 (

kg

/hr)

MMT 1 MMT 2MMT 3 MMT 4MMT 5 MMT 6MMT 7 MMT 8MMT 9 MMT 10

Hourly NH3 Emissions in Kentuckyfor Beef

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour (GMT)

kg

/hr

BeefBeef (WRAP_adj)Beef (WRAP)

Hourly NH3 Emissions in Kentuckyfor Dairy

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour (GMT)

kg

/hr

DairyDairy (WRAP_adj)Dairy (WRAP)

Hourly NH3 Emissions in Kentuckyfor Swine

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour (GMT)

kg

/hr

SwineSwine (WRAP_adj)Swine (WRAP)

NH3 Emissions Estimates - BeefJanuary 3, 2002

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Hour

NC OH TX WA WI

NH3 Emissions Estimates - BeefJuly 2, 2002

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Hour

NC OH TX WA WI

Hourly NH3 Emissions for Beef forNC, OH, TX, WA, WI