Joint EPMAN and Agriculture and Nature Panel meeting Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

DANISH CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGYAARHUS UNIVERSITY

– Presentation of the guidebook update project – - NMVOC from animal manure –- NH3 from mineral fertilisers -

Joint EPMAN and Agriculture and Nature Panel meetingFreie Universität Berlin, Germany

28. September 2012

Steen Gyldenkærne, Mette H. Mikkelsen and Rikke AlbrechtsenEMMI, ENVS, DCEAarhus University


28. September 2012Steen Gyldenkærne

Outline› The Guidebook

› Updating part of the GB› 7 different tasks

› NMVOC› Currently not in the GB – new chapter

› NH3 from mineral fertilisers› Update of the GB

› Current status of the GB



The EEA/EMEP guidebook on NMVOC› No guidance on manure management/animals› New Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodology› Starting from scratch› > 500 different compounds› 20 compunds are responsible for 80-90 % of the total emission having

different chemical and physical properties – mostly› Alkohols› Acids (VFA, Volatile Fatty Acids)› Esters› Amids› Sulfur compounds (DMS, DMDS, DMTS)

› Closely related to (same) odour compounds› The guidebook shall cover the whole EMEP area› With very variable climatic conditions



NMVOC sources› Little knowledge on where the NMVOC is

formed› The largest source is silage (fermented grass, low pH)

› Primarily ethanol and VFA

› Can also be found in:› Rumen head space of cattle, however, no correlation to CH4 from

enteric fermentation (no data available). Large amounts is seen as a dysfunction of the rumen

› In the testine› In manure in the barns and in manure stores› Unclear how much is formed during storage› Unclear how mush is released after manure application



Model approach

› NMVOCemission =

NMVOCsilage store +NMVOCfeeding table +NMVOCmanure housing +NMVOCmanure outside stores +NMVOCmanure application



NMVOC measurements› Several odour measurements from barns, manure stores and

manure application but very variable and not quantified

› A few from American manure stores, lagoons – size 1-2 hectares

› Two articles on the concentration in the rumen head space

› None during grazing

› US NAEM study – 20 locations over two years› Not reported but raw data available on the their homepage› Includes: ammonia, PM10, PM2.5, H2S, VOC on some dates, NMHC in some

periods on selected farms and environmental data



NMVOC - emission› Emission depends mainly on:

› Temperature› Vindspeed over the surface/ventilation rate› A simple model for the domain› EmissionNMVOC = Emissionreference * Reductiontemperature *

Reductionventilation

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

50001000015000200002500030000

f(x) = 195.194444215451 x + 1650.52003950793R² = 0.0925235246194022

Raw VOC emission/500 kg fat-teners

Temperatures, °C



Climate in pigs barns

-20 -10 00 10 20 300

100200300400500600700800900

1000

f(x) = 101.187760524964 exp( 0.0522040564551983 x )R² = 0.88005929645019

Ventilation

Outdoor Temp, °C

m3/

hour

/500

kg

pig

-20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

f(x) = − 6.330002948229 ln(x) + 23.2767131692454R² = 0.788858449028752f(x) = − 6.330002948229 ln(x) + 23.2767131692454R² = 0.788858449028752

f(x) = 0.00548894983256504 x² − 0.834828676273015 x + 18.8739182231956R² = 0.956245805155825

Outdoor temperature, ºC

ΔT,

ºC



Climatic strenght over the EMEP area› Emissionstrength = Tempstrength, HCC

* Ventilationstrength

› 50 different locations in Europe› Climate data from VMO› Yearly average 0-20 °C› Emissionstrength = integration of Temperature and Ventilation with a daily

timestep

0 5 10 15 20 250123456

f(x) = 0.839143107153385 exp( 0.0831605304172672 x )R² = 0.900353902622739

Fatteners: Rel emission strength

Average outdoor temperature, °C

Rela

tiv e

mis

sion

: Ind

oor

tem

pera

ture

* V

entil

atio

n ra

te



The same climate corrrection for open and closed barns›

0 5 10 15 20 25-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

f(x) = 0.0601378781737147 exp( 0.158959621138714 x )R² = 0.851426256885247

f(x) = 0.220213721770289 exp( 0.0762368757494619 x )R² = 0.848997460560707f(x) = 0.198087647807445 exp( 0.082849950531028 x )R² = 0.90616403785777f(x) = 0.229214464918941 exp( 0.0746361556265398 x )R² = 0.922452722338991f(x) = 0.276189445993358 exp( 0.0676690572041514 x )R² = 0.979383267461403

Relativ emission strength

Average outdoor temperature, °C

Rela

tiv e

mis

sion

: Ind

oor

tem

pera

ture

*

Vent

ilatio

n ra

te

This is theory!



Climate corrected emissions

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

f(x) = − 180.270651881283 x + 7554.98394037849R² = 0.21047319137944

Climate corrected VOC/500 kg fattners

-20 -10 00 10 20 30 400

2000400060008000

10000120001400016000

f(x) = 2020.13095934874 exp( 0.002970392950138 x )R² = 0.00169284574033381

Raw NMHC emission / 500 kg fatteners

-20 -10 00 10 20 30 400

5000100001500020000250003000035000400004500050000

f(x) = 17324.0125915346 x^-0.747107307191312R² = 0.382664046605478

f(x) = − 3321.01288792392 ln(x) + 12967.3150664423R² = 0.352182267977685f(x) = − 318.501292284991 x + 9302.88000156381

R² = 0.30153836232956

Climate corrected NMHC/500 kg fatteners

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

f(x) = 195.194444215451 x + 1650.52003950793R² = 0.0925235246194022

Raw VOC emission/500 kg fat-teners



NMVOC conclusion 1› The theoretical climate related emission strength model

suggest a difference in the NMVOC emission over the EEA/EMEP area of 2-3

› The theoretical climate emission strength model cannot be verified by the data from the NAEM study

› It is therefore suggested to use the average emission from the NAEM study for the whole EMEP/EEA area

› Emissions from animals of different sizes and different animal species is suggested related to

› Feed intake: Data can be taken from the UNFCCC reporting› Volatile substance in manure: Data can be taken from the UNFCCC

reporting› Emission during grazing: Depends on feed intake



Proposed Tier 1 NMVOC emission factors

Code LivestockEF, with silage

feeding (NMVOC, kg AAP-1. a-1)

EF, without silage feeding (NMVOC,

kg AAP-1. a-1)

100901Dairy cows 18,120 8,242

100902Other cattle (including young cattle, beef cattle and suckling cows)** 9,950 4,785

100903Fattening pigs***** - 0,586

100904Sows - 3,308

100905Sheep**,*** 0,318 0,190

100911Goats**,*** 0,224 0,134

100906Horses**,*** 9,398 5,149

100912Mules and Asses**,*** 5,125 2,808

100907Laying hens (laying hens and parents) - 0,125

100908Broilers (broilers and parents) - 0,059

100909Other poultry (ducks, geese, turkeys)* - 0,506

100910Fur animals - 0,979

Rabbits**,*** - 0,426

Reindeer**,***,**** - 0,045

100913Camels**,***,**** - 0,271

100914Buffalo**,*** 14,353 3,346



Proposed Tier 2 NMVOC emission factors

Code Livestock

EFNMVOC_TMR EFNMVOC_house EFNMVOC_graz

NMVOC, kg. MJ-1 feed intake

100901Dairy cows 0,000220 0,000032 0,00000687

100902Other cattle (including young cattle, beef cattle and suckling cows)** 0,000220 0,000032 0,00000687

Code Livestock

EFNMVOC_TMR EFNMVOC_house EFNMVOC_graz

NMVOC, kg. Kg VS-1 NMVOC, kg. MJ-1 feed intake

100903Fattening pigs***** 0,001703

100904Sows 0,007042

100905Sheep**,*** 0,012579 0,001887 0,00000687

100911Goats**,*** 0,011803 0,001770 0,00000687

100906Horses**,*** 0,013036 0,001955 0,00000687

100912Mules and Asses**,*** 0,016108 0,002416 0,00000687

100907Laying hens (laying hens and parents) 0,005684

100908Broilers (broilers and parents) 0,004090

100909Other poultry (ducks, geese, turkeys)* 0,006135

100910Fur animals 0,005684 0,00000687

Rabbits**,*** 0,001747 0,00000687

Reindeer**,***,**** 0,001747 0,00000687

100913Camels**,***,**** 0,010942 0,001641 0,00000687

100914Buffalo**,*** 0,008353 0,001253 0,00000687



Mineral fertilisers



Tier 2 - NH3 emission from mineral fertilisers› What do we know?

› Application time differs over the EMEP/EEA area› Application time is different defined in different countries

› The current model use a temperature dependent EF› Large temperature correction for urea and ammonium sulfate› Minor temperature correction for CAN, AN and others› Consequence large error for urea and AS if the temperature regime is

not correct

› To get the best emission estimate the temperature conditions during and after application should be defined correctly



Current methodology› Use temperature dependent emission factors› Assumes that all fertilisers are applied in spring

› Average spring temperature is defined as the three months after 400 Day Degrees from 1. January

› Different regions depending on average annual temperatures

› The Problem:› The estimated application time and consequently the used temperature

in the emission estimate factor functions is too high as this is summer time (May-July)

› The overestimation of the temperature when application takes place is likely 6-10 °C

› The temperature dependent emission factors could be unreliable



Proposed new methodolgy› Four different application periods:› Rationale:

› The farmers will apply when it is optimal› Regardless of differences in climatic conditions within a country plant

growth starts at the same temperature conditions › Spring:

› If the temperature (t) < 6°C Spring is defined as 6 °C› If the temperature is > 6°C spring temperature is defined as the average

temperature of the months Marts-May (tspring) – this to account for higher temperatures like in the Mediterranean area

› Summer: › Average temperature of the months June-August (tsummer)

› Autumn: › Average temperature of the months September-November (tautumn)

› Winter: › Average temperature of the months December-February (twinter)



Proposed new methodolgy› Step 1 › Split the country into climatic regions. It is good practise to split a country in

regions if the average summer temperature (tsummer) varies > 5 °C from one place to another and obtain information on calcareous soil types (soil pH >7).

› Step 2 › Obtain information from agricultural advisors from different regions in the

country on fertilisation practise on how many percentages are applied in the different times of the year. Preferential split on at least urea and other fertiliser types as there may be differences in especially the use of these two major types. These percentages should be updated at least every five years as changes in praxis may occur.

› Step 3 › Split the annual country/regional specific fertiliser consumption into the

different climatic regions› Step 4 › Use the model in Table 3–2 to estimate emissions from each type of N fertiliser

in each of the regions and at each of the four times of the year. The emission from each fertiliser type for each region is calculated as the product of the mass of fertiliser of that type applied in the region and the EF for that fertiliser type in that region. Emissions of NH3 from fertilisers applied to grass cut for hay or silage may be calculated using the same factors as for arable and other crops. In addition, the effect of calcareous soils is included through use of a multiplier on the basis of values for different areas.



Current emission factors› From Table 3-2 in the GB

Fertiliser type EFi Multiplier cAmmonium sulphate = 0.0107 + 0.0006 tt 1)10Ammonium nitrate = 0.0080 + 0.0001 tt 1Calcium ammonium nitrate

= 0.0080 + 0.0001 tt 1

Anhydrous ammonia = 0.0127 + 0.0012 tt 4Urea = 0.1067 + 0.0035 tt 1Nitrogen solutions = 0.0481 + 0.0025 tt 1Ammonium phosphates

= 0.0107 + 0.0006 tt 1)10

Other NK and NPK = 0.0080 + 0.0001 tt 1



NH3 loss from mineral fert. application

Efert_NH3=i=1Ij=1Jt=1T(mfert_i_j_t∙EFi_j_t∙(1-palk_j∙1-ci))



NH3 loss from mineral fert. application



NH3 loss from mineral fert. application› Problems:

› Very variable emission estimates:› Different soil types, CEC, pH, humidity, precipitation

› The measuring techniques are different (lab, tunnel, micro met.)› Lab is artificial› Forced ventilation in tunnels may create overestimations› Only a few micro meteorological studies

› Negative values are difficult interpretate› Probably due to high NH3 concentrations in the air (negative fluxes)› High uptake rates inside the canopy



Conclusion on mineral fertilisers› A better methodology for estimation of the temperature

conditions when the fertilisers actually are applied› The new emission studies found in the literature do not differ

substantially from previous reported data› There are indications that some of the fertiliser types response to

increased temperatures

› We (I) have not the insight/knowledge to judge if the previous EF are optimal

› An advanced analysis of the actual soil, temperature, crop types and application technique for the EMEP/EEA area to be used as parameters in an advanced physical – chemical model is outside the limits for this project

› And therefore not able to optimize the previous parameters› We therefore suggest to maintain the previous EF until better judgment

can be justified› Update of the emission factors needs larger investigations and should be

discussed in a broader audience› We should remember that this is a Tier 2 which should be

easy to implement and use› All countries are welcome to advance to Tier 3



Guidebook chaptersCan be downloaded from:

http://www.tfeip-secretariat.org/emep-eea-guidebook-review-of-draft-chapters/

Comments should be made before 15. October 2012

Thanks for your attention

National borders exists only in our minds





Danish NMVOC

In total 86,160,000 tonnes in 2010 (86.16 Gg)



European NMVOC emissions

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/sector-share-of-non-methane-volatile-organic-compounds-emissions-eea-member-countries-2/nmvoc_fig_4/image_original

Joint EPMAN and Agriculture and Nature Panel meeting Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Documents

Transcript of Joint EPMAN and Agriculture and Nature Panel meeting Freie Universität Berlin, Germany