Advertisement

Parameters determining the performance of passive flux samplers proposed as a tool to estimate N2O emissions: evaluation at farm level and perspectives

  • Araceli D. Larios
  • Stéphane Godbout
  • Satinder Kaur BrarEmail author
  • Joahnn H. Palacios
  • Dan Zegan
  • Fabiola Sandoval-Salas
  • Bernardo Predicala
  • Antonio Avalos-Ramírez
Research Article

Abstract

The passive flux sampling is an economic and easy way to estimate gas emissions from agriculture sources. In the last decade, specific passive flux samplers (PFSs) have been developed to estimate nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from agriculture sources. Packed with silica gel and zeolite 5A, the PFSs were placed facing the emission source direction close to the ventilation shafts. For validation, air samples were taken at different sampling time during 3 days on two commercial sites. The adsorbed mass of N2O in PFSs was recovered by thermal desorption in the laboratory. Results indicated that the mass of N2O adsorbed in PFSs was from 1.5 to 5.5 μg. A specific adsorption pattern was observed for each sampling. In farm 1, the mass of N2O adsorbed in the PFSs presented a linear behavior as a function of sampling time, and the most determined coefficient values were higher than 0.80. In farm 2, in addition to the sampling time, the N2O concentration and the air flow rate presented an effect on the mass adsorbed in the PFSs. On the other hand, comparison of PFSs versus other techniques indicated that PFSs offer different advantages. However, the selectivity and capacity of the adsorbent bed used need to be improved to enhance the use of PFSs proposed as a tool to estimate N2O emissions.

Graphical Abstract

PFSs enabled N2O sampling that followed a linear behavior as a function of sampling time. Sampling time, [N2O], and air flow rate determined the mass of N2O collected in PFSs

Keywords

Greenhouse gas emissions Nitrous oxide Passive flux samplers Adsorption Agriculture sector Livestock buildings Gas sampling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Our sincere thanks go to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for economic support by means of the Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Program (AGGP). The main author would like to thank the Program for the Professional development of Professors (Prodep-Mexico) for the grant to perform the research stage. One coauthor would like to thank the FRQNT (research-college grant) for the financial support to participate in this study.

Funding information

This study was financially supported by the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada program.

References

  1. Broucek J (2017) Nitrous oxide production from cattle and swine manure. J Anim Behav Biometeorol 5:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson EA, Kanter D (2014) Inventories and scenarios of nitrous oxide emissions. Environ Res Lett 9:105012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Delgado B, Gonzalez DL, Godbout S, Lagace R, Giroir-Fendler A, Ramirez AA (2017) A study of torrefied cardboard characterization and applications: composition, oxidation kinetics and methane adsorption. Sci Total Environ 593:406–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Derouane EG, Andre J-M, Lucas AA (1988) Surface curvature effects in physisorption and catalysis by microporous solids and molecular sieves. J Catal 110:58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P (2014) Climate change 2014 mitigation of climate change. In: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp 511–597Google Scholar
  6. EPA (2013) Global mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases: 2010–2030. EPA-430-R-13-011. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC 20005, 410Google Scholar
  7. FAO (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land use. Vol. 2017Google Scholar
  8. Godbout S, Phillips V, Sneath R (2006) Passive flux samplers to measure nitrous oxide and methane emissions from agricultural sources, part 1: adsorbent selection. Biosyst Eng 94:587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Godbout S, Pelletier F, Palacios J, Feddes J, Larouche J, Belzile M, Fournel S, Lemay S (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions non-cattle confinement buildings: monitoring, emission factors and mitigation. INTECH Open Access PublisherGoogle Scholar
  10. Guillemot M, Castel B (2015) Workplace nitrous oxide sampling: alternative adsorbents. Ind Eng Chem Res 54(32):7760–7765Google Scholar
  11. Harper L, Denmead O, Flesch T (2011) Micrometeorological techniques for measurement of enteric greenhouse gas emissions. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hassouna M, and Eglin T (2015) Mesurer les émissions gazeuses en élevage–Gaz à effet de serre, ammoniac et oxydes d’azote. Diffusion INRA-ADEMEGoogle Scholar
  13. Hongmin D, Mangino J, McAllister TA, Hatfield JL, Johnson D, Lassey, KR, Aparecida de Lima M, Romanovskaya A (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: chapter 10. Emissions from livestock and manure management. In Volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. IPCC, http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf
  14. Larios AD, Brar S, Avalos-Ramírez A, Godbout S, Sandoval-Salas F, Palacios JH (2016) Challenges in the measurement of emissions of nitrous oxide and methane from livestock sector. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 15:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Larios A, Brar S, Avalos-Ramírez A, Godbout S, Sandoval-Salas F, Palacios J, Dubé P, Delgado B, Giroir-Fendler A (2017) Parameters determining the use of zeolite 5A as collector medium in passive flux samplers to estimate N2O emissions from livestock sources. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:12136–12143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Larios AD, Godbout S, Brar SK, Palacios JH, Zegan D, Avalos-Ramirez A, Sandoual-Salas F (2018) Development of passive flux samplers based on adsorption to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural sources. Biosyst Eng 169:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayinger F, STEGER RE (1993) Experimental and theoretical investigations concerning coadsorption of. J Energy 15:165–177Google Scholar
  18. Hassouna Mélynda, Thomas E (2015) Mesurer les émissions gazeuses en élevage: gaz à effet de serre, ammoniac et oxydes d‘azoteGoogle Scholar
  19. Montes F, Meinen R, Dell C, Rotz A, Hristov AN, Oh J, Waghorn G, Gerber PJ, Henderson B, Makkar HPS, Dijkstra J (2013) SPECIAL TOPICS-Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: II. A review of manure management mitigation options. J Anim Sci 91:5070–5094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mosquera LJ (2003) Guidelines for the use of passive flux samplers (PFS) to measure ammonia emissions from mechanically ventilated animal houses, Rep. No. 9054062339. IMAGGoogle Scholar
  21. Mosquera LJ, Ogink N, Scholtens R (2003) Using passive flux samplers to determine the ammonia emission from mechanically ventilated animal housesGoogle Scholar
  22. Palacios JH, Godbout S, Turcotte S, Ricard MA (2018) Impact of slatted floor on ammonia emissions in fattening swine housing. In 10th International Livestock Environment Symposium (ILES X), pp. 1. ASABE, St. Joseph, MIGoogle Scholar
  23. Tubiello, F. N., Salvatore, M., Cóndor Golec, R. D., Ferrara, A., Rossi, S., Biancalani, R., Federici, S., Jacobs, H., and Flammini, A. (2014). Agriculture, forestry and other land use emissions by sources and removals by sinks.Google Scholar
  24. Younas M, Sohail M, Leong L, Bashir MJ, Sumathi S (2016) Feasibility of CO2 adsorption by solid adsorbents: a review on low-temperature systems. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13:1839–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Araceli D. Larios
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stéphane Godbout
    • 2
  • Satinder Kaur Brar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joahnn H. Palacios
    • 2
  • Dan Zegan
    • 2
  • Fabiola Sandoval-Salas
    • 1
    • 3
  • Bernardo Predicala
    • 4
  • Antonio Avalos-Ramírez
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (INRS), Centre Eau, Terre & EnvironnementQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Institut de Recherche et de Développement en Agroenvironnement (IRDA)QuébecCanada
  3. 3.Instituto Tecnológico Superior de PerotePeroteMéxico
  4. 4.Prairie Swine CentreSaskatoonCanada
  5. 5.Centre National en Électrochimie et en Technologies Environnementales (CNETE)ShawiniganCanada

Personalised recommendations