Advertisement

Mixing nanoparticles with swine manure to reduce hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emissions

Original Paper

Abstract

Addition of nanoparticles into swine manure was investigated as a possible measure to mitigate the emissions of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia from swine production facilities. Bench-scale experiments were conducted, followed by room-scale tests in controlled environment chambers closely representing actual swine production rooms. Among the 12 types of commercial nanoparticles tested, zinc oxide nanoparticles achieved significant reduction in gaseous hydrogen sulfide and ammonia concentrations when mixed into the manure at a rate of 3 g zinc oxide nanoparticles per liter of manure slurry. Room-scale experiments showed that mean initial hydrogen sulfide concentrations of 596, 57 and 39 ppm measured at the pit, animal and human levels within each chamber, respectively, were reduced significantly to 5, 1 and 1 ppm, respectively, after the addition of zinc oxide nanoparticles into the manure. Effectiveness of the treatment was persistent in maintaining low hydrogen sulfide level up to 15 days after treatment application. Pig performance and manure nutrient properties were not adversely affected by the application of zinc oxide nanoparticles.

Keywords

Environmental emission Abatement Zinc oxide Nanoparticles Swine 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund (2006-0134) and the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (312387-05) for the financial support to this research. Strategic funding provided by Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, Saskatchewan Pork Development Board, Alberta Pork and Manitoba Pork Council to the research programs at Prairie Swine Centre, Inc. (PSCI) was gratefully acknowledged. Technical assistance provided by PSCI barn staff is greatly appreciated.

References

  1. ASABE (2005) EP470: manure storage safety. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MIGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagreev A, Bashkova S, Locke DC, Bandosz TJ (2001) Sewage sludge-derived materials as efficient adsorbents for removal of hydrogen sulphide. Environ Sci Technol 35:1537–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brayner R, Ferrari-Iliou R, Brivois N, Djediat S, Benedetti MF, Fievet F (2006) Toxicological impact studies based on Escherichia coli bacteria in ultrafine ZnO nanoparticles colloidal medium. Nano Lett 6:866–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brioukhanov A, Pieulle L, Dolla A (2010) Antioxidative defense systems of anaerobic sulfate-reducing microorganisms. In: Mendez-Vilas A (ed) Current research, technology and education topics in applied microbiology and microbial biotechnology. Formatex Research Center, Spain, pp 148–159Google Scholar
  5. Broadley MR, White PJ, Hammond JP, Zelko I, Lux A (2007) Zinc in plants. New Phytol 173:677–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casey KD, Bicudo JR, Schmidt DR, Signh A, Gay SW, Gates RS, Jacobson LD, Hoff, SJ (2006) Air quality and emissions from livestock and poultry production/waste management systems. In: Rice JM, Caldwell DF, Humenik FJ (eds) Animal agriculture and the environment. National Center for Manure and Animal Waste Management White Papers, ASABE, St. Joseph, MI, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  7. Chastain JP (2000) Evaluation of biosafe as an additive to reduce odor from swine manure. Clemson University, Clemson, SC. http://www.clemson.edu/agbioeng/bio/Chastain/Evaluation%20of%20Biosafe.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2010
  8. Chung Y, Lin Y, Tseng C (2005) Removal of high concentration of NH3 and coexistent H2S by biological activated carbon (BAC) biotrickling filter. Bioresour Technol 96:1812–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson E (2004) Method and composition for scavenging sulphide in drilling fluids. US Patent 6476611Google Scholar
  10. Davies BE (1993) Radish as an indicator plant for derelict land—uptake of zinc at toxic concentrations. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 24:1883–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliott DW, Zhang WX (2001) Field assessment of nanoscale bimetallic particles for groundwater treatment. Environ Sci Technol 35:4922–4926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EPA (1994) A plain english guide to the EPA part 503. Biosolids Rule, US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/503pe/. Accessed 20 Oct 2010
  13. EPA (2007) Nanotechnology white paper, science policy council. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 100/B-07/001. http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/whitepaper12022005.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2010
  14. Fang M, Chen JH, Xu XL, Yang PH, Hildebrand HF (2006) Antibacterial activities of inorganic agents on six bacteria associated with oral infections by two susceptibility tests. Int J Antimicrob Agents 27:513–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Govere EM, Tonegawa M, Bruns MA, Wheeler EF, Heineman PH, Kephart KB, Dec J (2005) Deodorization of swine manure using minced horseradish roots and peroxides. Agric Food Chem 53:4880–4889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartung J, Phillips VR (1994) Control of gaseous emissions from livestock buildings and manure stores. J Agric Eng Res 57:173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu J, Chen G, Lo IMC (2005) Removal and recovery of Cr(VI) from wastewater by maghemite nanoparticles. Water Res 39:4528–4536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobson L, Radman C, Schimdt D, Nicolai R (1997) Odor measurements from manure storages on Minnesota pig farms. In: Botthcher RW, Hoff SJ (eds) Proceedings of the fifth international symposium on livestock environment. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp 93–100Google Scholar
  19. Kim JH, Seo G, Cho DL, Choi BC, Kim JB, Park HJ, Kim MW, Song SJ, Kim GJ, Kato S (2006) Development of air purification device through application of thin-film photocatalyst. Catal Today 111:271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu Y, He L, Mustapha A, Li H, Hu ZQ, Lin M (2009) Antibacterial activities of zinc oxide nanoparticles against Escherichia coli 0157:17. J Appl Microbiol 107:1193–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCrory DF, Hobbs PJ (2001) Additives to reduce ammonia and odor emissions from livestock wastes: a review. J Environ Qual 30:345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moffett BF, Nicholson FA, Uwakwe NC, Chambers BJ, Harris JA, Hill TC (2003) Zinc contamination decreases the bacterial diversity of agricultural soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 43:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ndegwa PM, Zhu J (2003) Novel procedures for accurate sampling of swine manures. In: Proceedings of the 9th international animal, agricultural and food processing wastes. ASABE, St. Joseph, MI, pp 221–229Google Scholar
  24. Neuhauser EF, Loehr RC, Milligan DL, Malecki MR (1985) Toxicity of metals to the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Biol Fertil Soils 1:149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nonami T, Hase H, Funakoshi K (2004) Apatite-coated titanium dioxide photocatalyst for air purification. Catal Today 96:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (2001) OSHA chemical sampling information. http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_246800.html. Accessed 18 Mar 2011
  27. PSCI (2000) Pork production reference guide, 1st edn. Prairie Swine Centre, SaskatoonGoogle Scholar
  28. Sawai J (2003) Quantitative evaluation of antibacterial activities of metallic oxide powders (ZnO, MgO and CaO) by conductimetric assay. J Microbiol Methods 54:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sayyadnejad MA, Ghaffarian H, Saeidi M (2008) Removal of hydrogen sulphide by zinc oxide nanoparticles in drilling fluid. Int J Environ Sci Tech 5:565–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneegurt MA, Weber DL, Ewing S, Schur H B (2005) Evaluating biostimulant effects in swine production facility wastewater. In: Proceedings of the state of the science of animal manure and waste management symposium. North Carolina State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  31. Shah S, Westerman P, Grabow G (2007) Additives for improving hog farm air quality. NC State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  32. Simensen E (1987) Manure gases and manure gas poisonings in livestock. Vet Hum Toxicol 29:61–62Google Scholar
  33. Smith DR, Moore PA Jr, Haggard BE, Maxwell CV, Daniel TC, VanDevander K, Davis ME (2004) Effect of aluminum chloride and dietary phytase on relative ammonia losses from swine manure. J Anim Sci 82:605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Takeno N (2005) Atlas of Eh–pH diagrams. Geological survey of Japan open file report No. 419. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, IbarakiGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang X, Yang F, Yang W, Yang X (2007) A study on the antibacterial activity of one-dimensional ZnO nanowire arrays: effects on the orientation and plane surface. Chem Commun 42:4419–4421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang X, Sun T, Yang J, Zhao L, Jia J (2008) Low-temperature H2S removal from gas streams with SBA-15 supported ZnO nanoparticles. Chem Eng J 142:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams CM, Schiffman SS (1996) Effect of liquid swine manure additives on odor parameters. In: Proceedings of the international conference on air pollution from agricultural operations. MidWest Plan Service, Kansas City, pp 409–412Google Scholar
  38. Xue S, Chen KS, Hermanson RE (1998) Measuring ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emitted from manure storage facilities. Trans ASABE 41:1125–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang LL, Jiang YH, Ding YL, Povey M, York D (2007) Investigation into the antibacterial behaviour of suspensions of ZnO nanoparticles (ZnO nanofluids). J Nanopart Res 9:479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. C. Alvarado
    • 1
  • B. Z. Predicala
    • 1
  • D. A. Asis
    • 1
  1. 1.Prairie Swine Centre Inc.SaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations