Estimating air emissions from animal production in the United States using statistical models: Ammonia emissions from swine grow-finish barns

Animal production has the potential to emit various atmospheric pollutants including ammonia (NH<sub>3</sub>), which can impact human health, atmospheric visibility and ecosystem health through gaseous NH<sub>3</sub> and associated <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msubsup><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>NH</mml:mtext></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:math> particulate matter deposition. Emission estimating methodologies were developed using statistical models to estimate daily NH<sub>3</sub> emissions from swine grow-finish barns based on National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) data. Models were developed with variables that represented production, manure management and environmental conditions. Model performance was evaluated for predicting NAEMS and non-NAEMS emissions, consistency of model coefficients and sensitivity to different model input values. Accounting for ease of variable measurement, the best performing models for predicting NAEMS emissions were models 1b and 16a, both of which accounted for the influence of temperature, swine inventory and weight, but used different predictor and response variables. In predicting NAEMS emissions, model 1b had mean error (ME) and mean bias (MB) values of 1.6 kg day<sup>-1</sup> (normalized mean error (NME) = 25.9 %) and 0.1 kg day<sup>-1</sup> (normalized mean bias (NMB) = 1.2 %), respectively, which were slightly lower than the corresponding values for model 16a (ME/NME = 1.8 kg day<sup>-1</sup>/25.9 % and MB/NMB = 0.4 kg day<sup>-1</sup>/5.8 %). Model 1b performed better in predicting non-NAEMS emissions, but model 16a had more reasonable sensitivity when barn live animal weight was >215,000 kg. Models using nitrogen feed intake as a predictor variable also performed well in predicting emissions and although these models have greater uncertainty due to limited NAEMS measurements, they could potentially account for changes in feed practices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Atmospheric Environment X
Published
2025-12-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2025.100404
Primary Topic
Odor and Emission Control Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Estimating air emissions from animal production in the United States using statistical models: Ammonia emissions from swine grow-finish barns

John Thomas Walker, Marilyn Nash, Ian C. Rumsey
Atmospheric Environment X
Odor and Emission Control Technologies
article

Estimating air emissions from animal production in the United States using statistical models: Ammonia emissions from swine grow-finish barns

John Thomas Walker, Marilyn Nash, Ian C. Rumsey
article en

Abstract

Animal production has the potential to emit various atmospheric pollutants including ammonia (NH<sub>3</sub>), which can impact human health, atmospheric visibility and ecosystem health through gaseous NH<sub>3</sub> and associated <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msubsup><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>NH</mml:mtext></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:math> particulate matter deposition. Emission estimating methodologies were developed using statistical models to estimate daily NH<sub>3</sub> emissions from swine grow-finish barns based on National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) data. Models were developed with variables that represented production, manure management and environmental conditions. Model performance was evaluated for predicting NAEMS and non-NAEMS emissions, consistency of model coefficients and sensitivity to different model input values. Accounting for ease of variable measurement, the best performing models for predicting NAEMS emissions were models 1b and 16a, both of which accounted for the influence of temperature, swine inventory and weight, but used different predictor and response variables. In predicting NAEMS emissions, model 1b had mean error (ME) and mean bias (MB) values of 1.6 kg day<sup>-1</sup> (normalized mean error (NME) = 25.9 %) and 0.1 kg day<sup>-1</sup> (normalized mean bias (NMB) = 1.2 %), respectively, which were slightly lower than the corresponding values for model 16a (ME/NME = 1.8 kg day<sup>-1</sup>/25.9 % and MB/NMB = 0.4 kg day<sup>-1</sup>/5.8 %). Model 1b performed better in predicting non-NAEMS emissions, but model 16a had more reasonable sensitivity when barn live animal weight was >215,000 kg. Models using nitrogen feed intake as a predictor variable also performed well in predicting emissions and although these models have greater uncertainty due to limited NAEMS measurements, they could potentially account for changes in feed practices.

Atmospheric Environment XVol. 29
Environmental Protection Agency (US), Research Triangle Park Foundation (US), Environmental Protection Agency (GH), Environmental Protection Agency (IE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Odor and Emission Control Technologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.