Ground Truthing CALPUFF and AERMOD for Odor Dispersion from Swine Barns using Ambient Odor Assessment Techniques
Date
Authors
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Since 1905, the Department of Agricultural Engineering, now the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (ABE), has been a leader in providing engineering solutions to agricultural problems in the United States and the world. The department’s original mission was to mechanize agriculture. That mission has evolved to encompass a global view of the entire food production system–the wise management of natural resources in the production, processing, storage, handling, and use of food fiber and other biological products.
History
In 1905 Agricultural Engineering was recognized as a subdivision of the Department of Agronomy, and in 1907 it was recognized as a unique department. It was renamed the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering in 1990. The department merged with the Department of Industrial Education and Technology in 2004.
Dates of Existence
1905–present
Historical Names
- Department of Agricultural Engineering (1907–1990)
Related Units
- College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (parent college)
- College of Engineering (parent college)
- Department of Industrial Education and Technology, (merged, 2004)
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Abstract
A collaborative research effort by several institutions investigated the dispersion of odors from a swine production facility. Trained human receptors measured downwind odor concentrations from four tunnel-ventilated swine finishing barns near Story City, Iowa, during twenty measurement events conducted between June and November 2004. Odor concentrations were modeled for short time steps using CALPUFF and AERMOD atmospheric dispersion models to compare predicted and measured odor levels. Source emission measurements and extensive micrometeorological data were collected along with ambient odor measurements using the Nasal Ranger® device (St. Croix Sensory, St. Paul MN), Mask Scentometer, odor intensity ratings, and air sample analysis by dynamic triangular forced-choice olfactometry (DTFCO). AERMOD predictions fit the odor measurements slightly better than CALPUFF with predicted concentrations being about half those predicted by CALPUFF. The Mask Scentometer and Nasal Ranger® measurements related best to the dispersion model output, and scaling factors of 3.0 for CALPUFF and 2.4 for AERMOD suggested for the Nasal Ranger® and 0.5 for the Mask Scentometer (both models). Measurements obtained using the Nasal Ranger®, Mask Scentometer, and odor intensity ratings correlated well to each other, had the strongest linear relationships, and provided slopes (measured: modeled) closest to 1.0. Converting intensity ratings to a dilution to threshold concentration did not correlate and relate as well, and this method was deemed less desirable for ambient odor assessment. Collection of ambient air samples for analysis in a olfactometry laboratory displayed poor correlations with other methods and should not be used to assess ambient odors.
Comments
This proceeding is from International Symposium on Air Quality and Manure Management for Agriculture Conference Proceedings, 13-16 September 2010, Dallas, Texas 711P0510cd.