Summary of performance data for technologies to control gaseous, odor, and particulate emissions from livestock operations: Air management practices assessment tool (AMPAT).

The livestock and poultry production industry, regulatory agencies, and researchers lack a current, science-based guide and data base for evaluation of air quality mitigation technologies. Data collected from science-based review of mitigation technologies using practical, stakeholders-oriented evaluation criteria to identify knowledge gaps/needs and focuses for future research efforts on technologies and areas with the greatest impact potential is presented in the Literature Database tab on the air management practices tool (AMPAT). The AMPAT is web-based (available at www.agronext.iastate.edu/ampat) and provides an objective overview of mitigation practices best suited to address odor, gaseous, and particulate matter (PM) emissions at livestock operations. The data was compiled into Excel spreadsheets from a literature review of 265 papers was performed to (1) evaluate mitigation technologies performance for emissions of odor, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), particulate matter (PM), and greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to (2) inform future research needs.

Specifications Table

Value of the data

This data is the most comprehensive performance summary of air pollution control technologies applicable to livestock production systems. This data was collected from 265 published sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265]

Researchers and regulatory agencies need a summary and repository of air pollution mitigation technologies data.

This data can help livestock producers make better decisions on technologies that are available to solve their emissions problems.

Air pollution mitigation data is grouped by livestock and poultry species, and laboratory, pilot, and farm scale proven performance. This data shows where the knowledge gaps are in regards to emissions mitigation.

This data shows what tradeoffs may have to be considered in implementing a particular mitigation technology.

Data

The data presented here is organized reduction values from the literature in regards to livestock emissions mitigation technologies. The data is organized in three Excel files based on the source of emissions: Animal Housing, Land Application and Manure Storage and Handling. Within each file there are four worksheet tabs corresponding to an individual livestock species: Swine, Poultry, Dairy and Beef. Under each species tab there are multiple tables corresponding to a mitigation technology. Within each table there are multiple literature references pertaining to that technology along with the observed reductions in emissions from each reference. Emission reductions in each table correspond to one of six emissions areas: Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Odor, Dust/Particulates, Volatile Organic Compounds, and Greenhouse Gases.

The data contains 467 technology entries with 670 emissions inputs from 265 papers [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265]. Many papers contained data on more than one animal/poultry species, technology and/or an air pollutant emission. Of those 670 emissions inputs, only ~35% of data pertain to farm/field-scale testing. Similarly,~19% of data in the manure storage and handling category,~63% in the manure land application category, and ~43% in the housing category pertain to farm/field-scale. Technologies that were tested at farm/field-scale and had reported emissions reduction > 66% shown in Table 1. These technologies are also highlighted with green color in data (i.e., in three Supplemental Material spreadsheets for Animal Housing, Land Application, and Manure Storage & Handling, respectively). Selected summary of data for the average % reductions in this database is shown in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5. Table 1 summarizes technologies that had % reductions >66% for at least one target air pollutant. The following list is a count of specific data categories out of the 467 technology inputs:

Table 1

Farm/Field Scale-Tested Technologies with Emissions Reductions Greater Than 66%. (See Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Supplemental Material for more detailed data).

Species	NH3	H2S	Odor	PM	VOCs	CO2	CH4	N2O	CO2eq
Swine	scrubbers, urine/feces separation, aeration, solids removal, injection/incorporation and timing	biogas collection/purification	barriers, aeration, impermeable covers, permeable covers	biofilters	biofilter, injection/incorporation	NA	urine/feces separation, aeration, solids removal	solids removal	injection/incorporation
Poultry	landscaping	NA	barriers	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Dairy	NA	biofilters, aeration, impermeable covers	aeration, impermeable covers	NA	aeration, impermeable covers	NA	NA	NA	NA
Beef	injection/incorporation	NA	NA	stocking density	NA	NA	NA	manure treatment	NA

Note: NA=None available or not performing at this level.

Table 2

Swine – selected data summary

Note: Only technologies for which emissions reduction >66% were reported for at least one target air pollutant category were included in this table. Values are averages of comparable data across literature in the database. Percent reductions color coded in gray scale by 33% intervals with >66%: White,<−66%: Dark Gray and No Data: Black. Negative values indicate increase in emissions.

Table 3

Poultry – selected data summary

Note: Only technologies for which emissions reduction > 66% were reported for at least one target air pollutant category were included in this table. Values are averages of comparable data across literature in the database. Percent reductions color coded in gray scale by 33% intervals with > 66%: White,<−66%: Dark Gray and No Data: Black. Negative values indicate increase in emissions.

Table 4

Dairy – selected data summary

Note: Only technologies for which emissions reduction > 66% were reported for at least one target air pollutant category were included in this table. Values are averages of comparable data across literature in the database. Percent reductions color coded in gray scale by 33% intervals with > 66%: White,<−66%: Dark Gray and No Data: Black. Negative values indicate increase in emissions.

Table 5

Beef – selected data summary

Note: Only technologies for which emissions reduction > 66% were reported for at least one target air pollutant category were included in this table. Values are averages of comparable data across literature in the database. Percent reductions color coded in gray scale by 33% intervals with > 66%: White,<−66%: Dark Gray and No Data: Black. Negative values indicate increase in emissions.

243 for Swine

81 for Poultry

86 for Dairy

57 for Beef

191 for Housing

199 for Storage and Handling

77 for Land Application

The 670 emission inputs consisted of:

207 for Ammonia

57 for Hydrogen Sulfide

102 for Odor

50 for Dust/PM

36 for VOCs

52 for Carbon Dioxide

82 for Methane

71 for Nitrous Oxide

13 for Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

Complete data can be accessed from public repository: The Air Management Practices Tool (AMPAT) available at Extension and Outreach website, http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/ampat/.

Experimental design, materials and methods

The literature review consisted of four steps (Fig. 1) including (1) compilation of literature, (2) review of experimental information (reference, experimental design, technology performance, scope of study, etc.), (3) compilation and organization of study information into standardized spreadsheets, and (4) evaluation of technology and coding for mitigation performance. The literature database construction started with compiling literature with the use of online scientific databases, such as Web of Science.

Fig. 1

Literature review and information acquisition flow chart.

Database searches were performed with the keywords:

Odor, air quality, livestock, poultry, swine, dairy, beef, volatile organic compounds, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, greenhouse gas, emissions, mitigation, housing, manure storage, and manure land application.

The compiled literature was then reviewed and relevant information regarding the experiments conducted, technologies used, emission that were measured, reduction of those emissions, year of publication, DOI or link to literature, cost of implementing the technology, and full reference were extracted. The extracted information was then compiled in standardized spreadsheets according to species and source of emission: housing, manure storage and handling, or manure land application (Fig. 2). If percent emission reductions were not explicedly given in the literature it was calculated if enough other information was avalible using Eq. (1).

Fig. 2

Example of literature database speadsheet. [7], [35], [37], [78], [107], [108], [134], [141], [199], [201], [208], [209], [231] (web link: http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/ampat/database/homepage.html).

The % reductions for each target emission were color coded in the spreadsheets for quich visual indication of relative effectiveness.

The color coding was broken down into three air pollution mitigation technology performance sections:

red=<33% reduction,

yellow > 33% and =<67 reduction, or

green=>67% reduction.

Subject area	Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Engineering, Environmental Sciences
More specific subject area	Air Pollution Control, Livestock Production Systems
Type of data	Figures, tables
How data was acquired	Literature Review of 265 articles up to 2014 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265]
Data format	Raw
Experimental factors	The literature database construction started with compiling literature with the use of online scientific databases, such as Web of Science. Database searches were performed with the keywords: odor, air quality, livestock, poultry, swine, dairy, beef, volatile organic compounds, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, greenhouse gas, emissions, mitigation, housing, manure storage, and manure land application.
Experimental features	The literature review consisted of four steps including (1) compilation of literature, (2) review of experimental information (reference, experimental design, technology performance, scope of study, etc.), (3) compilation and organization of study information into standardized spreadsheets, and (4) evaluation of technology and coding for mitigation performance.
Data source location	Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
Data accessibility	Data is within this article.