Study on ammonia reduction technology by manure surface acidification in animal housing
摘要: 本研究针对养殖场圈舍环节氨挥发量大, 缺少可原位实施的氨减排技术的现状, 欲探究一种经济、高效、可实施并可广泛推广的圈舍原位氨减排技术。本研究利用圈舍模拟试验探索了不同剂量的硫酸和青贮渗出液对粪尿氨挥发的影响, 筛选可用于圈舍原位氨减排的酸化条件; 并进一步研发动物圈舍原位酸化氨减排设备, 将模拟试验筛选出的酸化条件应用于原位圈舍, 从氨减排效果和经济两个方面综合探究动物圈舍原位酸化技术的可行性。研究结果表明, 硫酸和青贮液可快速降低粪尿氨挥发: 以不喷酸作为对照, 按0.03 g∙m−2的喷施量, 在试验开始喷洒一次硫酸和青贮液, 可分别降低氨挥发排放速率39.1% (P<0.05)和42.7% (P<0.05), 但其减氨效果仅维持8 h左右。鉴于硫酸难以市场流通、青贮液无法雾化, 原位圈舍采用青贮液的主要成分乳酸作为酸化剂。本研究利用原位酸化氨减排设备对圈舍粪尿以不同频率喷酸时, 每天按0.03 g∙m−2的剂量喷洒乳酸(0.01 mol∙L−1) 3次(8:00、16:00、0:00)时氨减排效率最高, 与不喷酸相比, 氨减排效率为55.6% (P<0.01); 每天喷洒2次(8:00、16:00) 氨减排成本最低, 为147元∙kg−1(NH3)。本研究为养殖场圈舍环节提供了一项可实施的高效减氨技术, 但其成本仍较高, 该技术的广泛推广和应用还需进一步降低设备成本。Abstract: Animal housing plays an important role in NH3 emissions from livestock, and in situ technology for NH3 mitigation is lacking in China. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore an efficient, economic, and practical technology to reduce NH3 emissions from in situ animal housing. Here, we determined the effects of sulfuric acid and silage leachate at different doses on NH3 emissions in a simulated experiment to select the best acidification conditions that could be applied to in situ NH3 reduction technology in animal housing. We then designed and equipped a set of NH3 mitigation technologies (an acid spraying device) in sheep housing and applied the selected acidification conditions to explore the effect of NH3 mitigation technology on NH3 emissions from the perspective of NH3 reduction efficiency and economy. The results showed that sulfuric acid and silage leachate can reduce NH3 emissions efficiently. The NH3 reduction rates were 39.1% (P<0.05) for sulfuric acid and 42.7% (P<0.05) for silage leachate, respectively, when the spraying dose was 0.03 g·m−2, but it only worked within 8 h. Because sulfuric acid is difficult to obtain on the market and atomizing silage leachate is challenging, lactic acid, the main component of silage leachate, was used as an acidifier in in situ housing. When spraying lactic acid at the dose of 0.03 g·m−2 (0.01 mol·L−1) three times per day (8:00, 16:00, 0:00) by using an acid spraying device, NH3 reduction efficiency was the highest (55.6%, P<0.01); NH3 concentrations in the daytime were reduced by 67.0% (P<0.01) (3 m height) and 72.0% (P<0.01) (0 m height), respectively, when acid was sprayed once per day at 8:00, but there was no influence on NH3 concentration at night. When the acidification frequency was two times per day at 8:00 and 16:00, NH3 concentration could be reduced throughout the day, and there was a more efficient reduction in the daytime with 72.0% (P<0.01) (3 m height) and 56.5% (P<0.01) (0 m height) than that in nighttime with 32.1% (P<0.01) and 25.8% (P<0.01) at 3 m and 0 m height, respectively. As for the cost of NH3 reduction, spraying acid twice per day was the lowest at 147 ¥·kg−1(NH3), and the cost for three- and one-time acidification was 165 ¥·kg−1(NH3) and 211 ¥·kg−1(NH3), respectively. Infrastructure was the largest cost, accounting for approximately 80% of all costs. This study provides a feasible and efficient NH3 reduction technology for in situ animal housing, but there is a need to improve the equipment cost for the wide promotion and application of this technology.
图 3 不同酸化剂及添加量对羊粪表面氨气排放速率和累积排放量的影响
图例中“A”表示添加量为0.02 g∙m−2, “B”表示添加量为0.03 g∙m−2。In legend, “A” means that the additive amount is 0.02 g∙m−2, “B” means that the additive amount is 0.03 g∙m−2.
Figure 3. Effect of different acidifiers and addition amounts on ammonia emission rate and cumulative of sheep manure compost
图 4 每天不同酸化次数对圈舍氨浓度的影响
图a、c、e为3 m高度氨浓度, 图b、d、f为0 m高度氨浓度, g为不同酸化次数下的平均氨浓度。Figure a, c and e show the ammonia concentration at the hight of 3 m, figure b, d and f show the ammonia concentration at the hight of 0 m, figure g is the average ammonia concentration under different acidification times.
Figure 4. Effect of daily acidification times on ammonia concentration in the test housing
图 5 氨浓度与圈舍环境因子的相关关系
T: 温度; RH: 湿度; WS: 风速; 0 m: 0 m高度处的氨浓度; 3 m: 3 m高度处的氨浓度。实线表示正相关, 虚线表示负相关。**表示P<0.01水平显著相关。T: temperature; RH: humidity; WS: wind speed; 0 m: ammonia concentration at the height of 0 m; 3 m: ammonia concentration at the height of 3 m. Solid line means positive correlation, and dotted line means negetive correlation.
Figure 5. Correlation of NH3 concentration with environmental factors
表 1 不同添加化剂对粪尿NH4+-N、NOx-N、总氮(TN)、pH和含水率的影响
Table 1. Effects of different additives on NH4+-N, NOx-N, total nitrogen, pH and moisture content in manure samples
样品 Sample NH4+-N (g∙kg−1) NOx-N (g∙kg−1) pH 总氮 Total nitrogen (g∙kg−1) 含水率 Moisture (%) 24 h 72 h 24 h 72 h 24 h 72 h 24 h 72 h 24 h 72 h 对照 Control 0.81 1.12±0.12a 0.45 0.24±0.01a 8.59 8.59±0.04a 22.45 20.96±0.47a 68.74 70.16±0.02a 硫酸A Sulfuric acid A 1.38 0.68±0.10b 0.23 0.28±0.09a 8.54 8.59±0.07a 22.17 21.79±0.38a 69.99 65.82±0.01a 硫酸B Sulfuric acid B 1.09 0.65±0.12b 0.22 0.22±0.01a 8.68 8.62±0.06a 21.48 21.71±0.27a 71.07 67.00±0.00a 青贮液A Silage leachate A 1.15 0.70±0.10b 0.23 0.37±0.11a 8.46 8.70±0.086a 21.45 21.65±0.61a 71.09 64.60±0.02a 青贮液B Silage leachate B 1.34 0.85±0.16a 0.24 0.30±0.11a 8.46 8.70±0.08a 22.81 22.41±0.48a 71.36 65.07±0.04a A表示添加量为0.02 g∙m−2, B表示添加量为0.03 g∙m−2。原始样品的NH4+-N、NOx-N、pH、总氮和含水率分别为(1.70±0.13) g∙kg−1、(0.23±0.00) g∙kg−1、8.59±0.01、(21.10±0.21) g∙kg−1和73.4%。平均值中相同小写字母表示在95%置信水平上无显著性差异。“A” means that the additive amount is 0.02 g∙m−2, “B” means that the additive amount is 0.03 g∙m−2. The content of NH4+-N, NOx-N, total nitrogen and water of original samples are (1.70±0.13) g∙kg−1, (0.23±0.00) g∙kg−1, (21.10±0.21) g∙kg−1 and 73.4%, respectively, with pH of 8.59±0.01. Means followed by the same lowercase letter in each column are not significantly different at a 95% confidence level.
表 2 圈舍表面酸化氨减排技术成本投入
Table 2. Cost of ammonia reduction technology of manure surface acidification in housing
应用频率 Applying times per day 1 2 3 设备投入成本 Up-front cost (×106 ¥∙a−1) 2.9 2.9 2.9 固定运行成本 Fixed operation cost (×105 ¥∙a−1) 2.3 2.3 2.3 可变运行成本
Variable operation cost
电力 Electricity (×103 ¥∙a−1) 9.7 19.0 29.0 酸 Acid (×104 ¥∙a−1) 7.0 14.0 21.0 人工 Labor (×105 ¥∙a−1) 1.8 1.8 1.8 年总成本 Annual cost (×106 ¥∙a−1) 3.4 3.5 3.7 减氨成本 Ammonia reduction cost [ ¥∙kg−1(NH3)] 211 147 165
 PAULOT F, JACOB D J, PINDER R W, et al. Ammonia emissions in the United States, European Union, and China derived by high-resolution inversion of ammonium wet deposition data: interpretation with a new agricultural emissions inventory (MASAGE_NH3)[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2014, 119(7): 4343−4364 doi: 10.1002/2013JD021130  HUANG X, SONG Y, LI M M, et al. A high-resolution ammonia emission inventory in China[J]. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2012, 26(1): GB1030  WANG G H, ZHANG R Y, GOMEZ M E, et al. Persistent sulfate formation from London fog to Chinese haze[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(48): 13630−13635 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616540113  POZZER A, TSIMPIDI A P, KARYDIS V A, et al. Impact of agricultural emission reductions on fine-particulate matter and public health[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2017, 17(20): 12813−12826 doi: 10.5194/acp-17-12813-2017  GIANNADAKI D, GIANNAKIS E, POZZER A, et al. Estimating health and economic benefits of reductions in air pollution from agriculture[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 622/623: 1304−1316 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.064  ZHANG X M, GU B J, VAN GRINSVEN H, et al. Societal benefits of halving agricultural ammonia emissions in China far exceed the abatement costs[J]. Nature Communications, 2020, 11(1): 4357 doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18196-z  BAI Z H, MA L, JIN S Q, et al. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium flows through the manure management chain in China[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 50(24): 13409−13418  BAI Z H, LI X X, LU J, et al. Livestock housing and manure storage need to be improved in China[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2017, 51(15): 8212−8214  SOMMER S G, CLOUGH T J, BALAINE N, et al. Transformation of organic matter and the emissions of methane and ammonia during storage of liquid manure as affected by acidification[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2017, 46(3): 514−521 doi: 10.2134/jeq2016.10.0409  KAI P, PEDERSEN P, JENSEN J E, et al. A whole-farm assessment of the efficacy of slurry acidification in reducing ammonia emissions[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2008, 28(2): 148−154 doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2007.06.004  NDEGWA P M, HRISTOV A N, AROGO J, et al. A review of ammonia emission mitigation techniques for concentrated animal feeding operations[J]. Biosystems Engineering, 2008, 100(4): 453−469 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.05.010  杨福有, 李彩凤, 杜忍让, 等. 全株玉米青贮渗出液成分分析与利用[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2011, 57(2): 15−17 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0488-5368.2011.02.005YANG F Y, LI C F, DU R R, et al. Analysis and utilization of corn silage leachate[J]. Shaanxi Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 57(2): 15−17 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0488-5368.2011.02.005  许庆方, 韩建国, 玉柱. 青贮渗出液的研究进展[J]. 草业科学, 2005, 22(11): 90−95 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-0629.2005.11.023XU Q F, HAN J G, YU Z. Advances in the research of silage effluent[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2005, 22(11): 90−95 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-0629.2005.11.023  ZHANG N N, BAI Z H, WINIWARTER W, et al. Reducing ammonia emissions from dairy cattle production via cost-effective manure management techniques in China[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2019, 53(20): 11840−11848  薛文涛, 郭赫, 林聪, 等. 酸化处理对鸡粪沼液储存中氨排放的影响[J]. 中国沼气, 2019, 37(5): 40−45 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1166.2019.05.007XUE W T, GUO H, LIN C, et al. Effects of acidification on ammonia emissions from chicken manure biogas slurry during storage[J]. China Biogas, 2019, 37(5): 40−45 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1166.2019.05.007  刘娟, 柏兆海, 曹玉博, 等. 家畜圈舍粪尿表层酸化对氨气排放的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2019, 27(5): 677−685LIU J, BAI Z H, CAO Y B, et al. Impact of surface acidification of manure on ammonia emission in animal housing[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2019, 27(5): 677−685  PARK S H, LEE B R, KIM T H. Effects of cattle manure and swine slurry acidification on ammonia emission as estimated by an acid trap system[J]. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science, 2015, 35(3): 212−216 doi: 10.5333/KGFS.2015.35.3.212  MISSELBROOK T, HUNT J, PERAZZOLO F, et al. Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from slurry storage: impacts of temperature and potential mitigation through covering (pig slurry) or acidification (cattle slurry)[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2016, 45(5): 1520−1530 doi: 10.2134/jeq2015.12.0618  PAIN B F, MISSELBROOK T H, REES Y J. Effects of nitrification inhibitor and acid addition to cattle slurry on nitrogen losses and herbage yields[J]. Grass and Forage Science, 1994, 49(2): 209−215 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.1994.tb01994.x  PANETTA D M, POWERS W J, LORIMOR J C. Management strategy impacts on ammonia volatilization from swine manure[J]. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2005, 34(3): 1119−1130 doi: 10.2134/jeq2004.0313  CAO Y B, WANG X, BAI Z H, et al. Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions during solid waste composting with different additives: a meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 235: 626−635 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.288  WANG H D, ZHAO Z Q, WINIWARTER W, et al. Strategies to reduce ammonia emissions from livestock and their cost-benefit analysis: a case study of Sheyang County[J]. Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex: 1987), 2021, 290: 118045 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118045