Nutrient Recovery and Emissions of Ammonia, Nitrous Oxide, and

Subscriber access provided by GAZI UNIV

Article

Nutrient recovery and emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane from animal manure in Europe: effects of manure treatment technologies Yong Hou, Gerard L. Velthof, Jan Peter Lesschen, Igor G. Staritsky, and Oene Oenema Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04524 • Publication Date (Web): 06 Dec 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on December 10, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 29

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Nutrient recovery and emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane from

2

animal manure in Europe: effects of manure treatment technologies

3

Yong Hou∗,†, Gerard L. Velthof‡ , Jan Peter Lesschen‡, Igor G. Staritsky‡, Oene Oenema†,‡

4

5

†

6

Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

7 8

Department of Soil Quality, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA,

‡

Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA,

Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

9

10

11

Corresponding Author:

12

∗

13

[email protected];

Phone: +31 (0)317-485083; fax +31 (0)317-426101; e-mails: [email protected];

1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


14

Abstract

15

Animal manure contributes considerably to ammonia (NH3) and greenhouse gas (GHG)

16

emissions in Europe. Various treatment technologies have been implemented to reduce

17

emissions and to facilitate its use as fertilizer, but a systematic analysis of these technologies

18

has not yet been carried out. This study presents an integrated assessment of manure treatment

19

effects on NH3, nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions from manure management

20

chains in all countries of EU-27 in 2010 using the MITERRA-Europe model. Effects of

21

implementing twelve treatment technologies on emissions and nutrient recovery were further

22

explored through scenario analyses; the level of implementation corresponded to levels

23

currently achieved by forerunner countries. Manure treatment decreased GHG emissions from

24

manures in EU countries by 0-17% in 2010, with the largest contribution from anaerobic

25

digestion; the effects on NH3 emissions were small. Scenario analyses indicate that increased

26

use of slurry acidification, thermal drying, incineration and pyrolysis may decrease NH3 (9-

27

11%) and GHG (11-18%) emissions; nitrification-denitrification treatment decreased NH3

28

emissions, but increased GHG emissions. The nitrogen recovery (% of nitrogen excreted in

29

housings that is applied to land) would increase from a mean of 57% (in 2010) to 61% by

30

acidification, but would decrease to 48% by incineration. Promoting optimized manure

31

treatment technologies can greatly contribute to achieving NH3 and GHG emission targets set

32

in EU environmental policies.

33

34

35

36

2


Page 2 of 29

Page 3 of 29


NH3, N2O, CH4

Animal housing

37

Storage & treatment

Application to land

(Abstract art)

38

3



39

INTRODUCTION

40

Animal manure is a main source of plant-available nutrients, but also a major source of

41

emissions of ammonia (NH3) and the greenhouse gases (GHG) - nitrous oxide (N2O) and

42

methane (CH4). Manure from animal production is responsible for about 40% of the global

43

anthropogenic NH3 and N2O emissions.1,2 Approximately 35-40% of global anthropogenic

44

CH4 emissions are associated with the livestock sector (about 6% from manure management

45

and the remaining from enteric fermentation).3 In Europe, animal manures contribute about 65%

46

to the total anthropogenic NH3, 40% to N2O and 10% to CH4 emissions.4–7 Farm animals

47

excreted 9.7 Tg N and 1.7 Tg P in the 27 member states of European Union (EU-27) in 2010,

48

equivalent to about 95% and 160% of the total use of mineral N and P fertilizers.8,9

49

Emissions of NH3, N2O and CH4 may occur simultaneously from different sources of

50

manure management systems that typically include animal houses, manure storages, manure

51

application to land and droppings from grazing animals in pastures. Introducing a

52

management measure may have interactive effects on emissions of these gases from a specific

53

source; it may also influence emissions downstream in the system and hence the nutrient

54

recovery from the manure.10–12 The management chain from manure production up to its final

55

use needs to be considered when assessing effects of measures on gaseous emissions and

56

nutrient recycling and recovery.

57

Manure treatment technologies have been increasingly applied in practice in Europe during

58

the last few decades, driven by the specialization/intensification of animal production and the

59

tightened enforcement of EU environmental policies.13 Manure treatment creates management

60

opportunities to better use the nutrients and organic matter in manure. Treatment may induce

61

changes in physical, chemical and/or biological properties of the manure and hence influence

62

emissions of NH3 and GHG throughout the management chain. An inventory of manure

63

processing activities in the EU member states reported that 7.8% of manure produced in the

4


Page 4 of 29

Page 5 of 29


64

EU was processed in 2010, but with large variations among countries (range 0-35%).14 While

65

the increased implementation of manure treatment is in general lauded as an environmental

66

success,15 there is a need for systematic assessment of the impacts of manure treatment on

67

environmental factors to provide guidance to further development of manure management

68

strategies.

69

Few studies have assessed N and GHG emissions from the animal production systems at

70

country and the EU-27 levels.16–18 Manure treatment techniques are usually not considered in

71

these large-scale studies, and as a consequence their environmental impacts have not been

72

systematically addressed. Although a large number of laboratory and pilot experiments have

73

been carried out to analyze NH3 and GHG emissions from processed manures, most of them

74

focused on a specific gas/substance or emission source.10,19,20 Whole-farm (or life cycle)

75

assessments were mostly conducted based on specific farm-scale characteristics. Manure

76

management systems and the implementation of NH3 abatement measures (e.g. low-emission

77

stables, storage systems and application methods) vary greatly among farms and

78

countries.21,22 These farm and country-specific contexts may influence the performance of

79

manure treatment technologies. There is as yet little information about the potential effects of

80

manure treatment technologies in the EU. In particular, there is insufficient understanding of

81

possible synergistic and antagonistic effects of manure treatment on emissions of NH3, N2O

82

and CH4 and on nutrient recovery.

83

The objective of this study is to assess the contribution of various manure treatment

84

techniques to emissions of NH3, N2O and CH4 from animal manure in all member states of

85

the EU-27 during 2010 (the latest year for which most activity data from statistics are

86

available), using the model MITERRA-Europe.11,16 Further, the whole-chain impact potentials

87

of treatment technologies on gaseous emissions and nutrient recovery were explored through

88

scenario analyses. An uncertainty analysis was also executed.

5



89 90

MATERIALS AND METHODS

91

System boundary. The whole management chain from ‘animal excretion, in-house and

92

outdoor manure storage, manure treatment, application of manure to land, and deposition of

93

urine and faeces in pastures during grazing’ in the EU-27 was considered in this study. The

94

system boundary, the main flows of nutrients embodied in animal manures and the possible

95

manure treatment techniques are illustrated in Figure 1.11,14,16 The system includes the faeces

96

and urine from grazing animals deposited in pastures (31% of total N excretion in 2010; Table

97

S1) and the faeces and urine produced by housed animals. Excreta from housings are applied

98

to agricultural land after a period of storage in either liquid or solid form, or in some cases are

99

treated by certain technologies.

100

The main treatment technologies currently applied in Europe are solid-liquid separation,

101

anaerobic digestion, acidification, biological aerobic N removal (i.e. nitrification-

102

denitrification), composting, (thermal or bio-) drying and incineration.14 The use of a

103

particular technology depends on manure form (e.g. liquids, slurry and solid manure). Treated

104

manure products are typically returned to land, as fertilizers or soil amendments.14,15 Several

105

NH3 mitigation measures have also been adopted (see details in supporting information), but

106

the implementation level largely varied between countries.18

107

Emission sources. Emissions of NH3, N2O and CH4 from the manure management chain

108

were quantified at country and EU-27 level for 2010. Animal categories include the main

109

categories in Europe, i.e. dairy cows, other cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep and goats.16 Emission

110

sources include NH3, N2O and CH4 from animal manure in housing, manure storage and

111

treatment systems, and NH3 and N2O from manure applied to land and deposited in pastures

112

(Figure 1). As the present study focuses on manure management, enteric CH4 emissions were

113

not considered (see details in supporting information and Figure S1).

6


Page 6 of 29

Page 7 of 29


114

MITERRA-Europe and data sources. For calculations, the model MITERRA-Europe

115

was used. MITERRA-Europe is an integrated environmental assessment model which

116

calculates the N and P losses and GHG emissions on a deterministic and annual basis, using

117

statistical data of agriculture at EU country and regional levels.11,16 Country specific NH3

118

emission factors (EFs) are based on information from the GAINS model, and quantification of

119

N2O and CH4 emissions are based on IPCC guidelines.22,23

120

The N and P excretion for each animal category and country was quantified on the basis of

121

a three-year average (2009-2011) using the nutrient balance of feed intake and animal

122

production.8 Quantification of NH3 and GHG emissions are based on nutrient excretion

123

coefficients and respective emission factors. Data about manure management systems (i.e.

124

animal grazing, daily spreading, liquid and solid based systems) were sourced from national

125

GHG inventory reports (NIRs) to UNFCCC.21 Data about the degree of implementation of

126

NH3 mitigation measures and their abatement efficiencies were obtained from GAINS22,23 and

127

supplemented with information from NH3 mitigation guidance (UNECE) and review

128

articles.10,24–27

129

The IPCC default N2O-N EFs were adopted to quantify emissions of N2O from manure

130

management systems, application and deposition.28 To calculate CH4 emissions, country-

131

specific methane conversion factors (MCFs) for each animal category and manure

132

management system were obtained from NIRs to UNFCCC and considered the allocation of

133

manure management systems among climate zones. Calculations, nutrient excretion data

134

(Table S1) and emission factors (Table S2) are detailed in supporting information (SI).

135

Emissions of GHG, including N2O and CH4, were converted to CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq),

136

considering the global warming potential of 25 and 298 times of that of CO2 for CH4 and N2O

137

emissions, respectively. Indirect N2O emissions were not considered, and thus what is

138

reported here should be considered as minimum estimates.

7



139

Emissions from manure treatment. A ‘manure treatment’ module was developed to

140

assess environmental effects of the main treatment technologies in the manure management

141

chain (Figure 1). Information on the use of treatment techniques in each country in 2010 was

142

derived from an inventory report on manure treatment activities and NIRs to UNFCCC.14,21

143

Calculations and parameters (Table S3) related to emissions (NH3, N2O and CH4) from

144

manure treatment, storage and field application (treated manure), and nutrient recovery are

145

detailed in SI. Specific characteristics of referenced technologies are as follows:

146

Solid-liquid separation. Three groups of mechanical separator were included: i) screw and

147

filter pressing, ii) non-pressurized filtration and iii) centrifugation and sedimentation. Their

148

separation efficiencies (i.e. the mass of a nutrient element in separated solid fraction,

149

expressed as % of the mass of this element in raw slurry) varied from 10-33% for N and 15-

150

69% for P. Separation efficiencies were higher when flocculates and multivalent cations

151

(coagulation-flocculation) were added (Table S3). It is assumed that separation was near the

152

source of production, i.e. the slurry removed from housing was not stored prior to separation.

153

Slurry acidification. Acidification involves the daily addition of concentrated acid (e.g.

154

sulfuric acid) to the slurry under slatted floors within housing, to lower the pH to 5.5. A

155

fraction of the acidified slurry is transferred to an exterior storage tank without further

156

treatment.29,30 The average NH3 abatement efficiency was 65% in housing, 83% in outdoor

157

storage and 40% during application; a reduction of 87% for CH4 emissions from housing and

158

storage systems was found.10,29,30

159

Anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion of animal slurry in EU is dominantly operated

160

under mesophilic conditions.14 Biogas production from slurry was quantified as function of

161

volatile solid inputs, CH4 yield and biogas composition.31 Biogas is considered to be

162

composed of 55-65% CH4 and 35-45% CO2, depending on the country. Leakage is assumed

8


Page 8 of 29

Page 9 of 29


163

as 1% of the gross biogas production.32 Liquid and solid fractions were produced from

164

digested slurry when mechanical separators were used for post treatment.

165

Nitrification-denitrification treatment. This technology includes a separation unit (pre-

166

treatment), a nitrification-denitrification process (with liquid fractions as input) and a

167

settlement/separation unit (post-treatment). The resulting sludge and liquid effluent (post-

168

treatment) and solid fractions (pre-treatment) are stored before application. Emission factors

169

during treatment and storage were derived from studies conducted in Belgium, France and the

170

Netherlands, where this technique has been applied (Table S3).25,33–36

171

Composting. Solid manure and solid fractions separated from slurry are used for

172

composting.14 Emissions of NH3 from composting were considered to be 52% higher on

173

average than those from conventional storage, whereas emissions of CH4 (71%) and N2O

174

(49%) were lower on average; these percentages were derived from a meta-analysis study.27

175

Thermal drying. Poultry manure and separated solid fractions are dried at temperate of 80-

176

150 oC and commonly pelletized as post treatment.14 Gaseous emissions from the dryer must

177

be recovered to avoid NH3 emissions. Consequently, an air scrubber was assumed to be

178

installed with an average NH3 abatement efficiency of 85%.14,37 Methane emissions were

179

assumed to be negligible under aerobic conductions.

180

Bio-drying. This technique is used to treat poultry manure and solid fractions separated

181

from slurry to reduce moisture content (by 40-60%) and to facilitate transport. This technique

182

has not been widely used in EU.14 Emissions of NH3 are assumed to be increased (by 121%)

183

relative to static piling due to the forced aeration.27 Changes in N2O and CH4 emissions due to

184

aeration were not always consistent, therefore EFs for static piling were assumed to apply for

185

these systems.27

186

Incineration. Industrial-scale incineration of poultry manure exists in several EU countries

187

(the Netherlands and UK), with the net energy surplus being used for electricity

9



188

generation.14,38 The gases released from this process (with gas cleaning installation) mainly

189

consist of CO2 and N2, while other emissions (NH3, N2O, NOx and CH4) are minor or

190

negligible.38 Ash residues contain all P input from feedstocks and no or a limited fraction (less

191

than 2%) of the C and N input.38–41

192

Emissions from application of manure. Emissions of NH3 and N2O following the

193

application of (treated and untreated) manure were estimated from their N contents and the

194

specific EFs. Calculations and emission factors (Table S2 and Table S3) are detailed in SI.

195

Emission factors were obtained from review articles (e.g. meta-analysis) and experimental

196

studies (data sources are shown in SI). Impacts of manure application approaches that result

197

in low NH3 emissions, such as immediate incorporation, injection of manure and band

198

spreading, were quantified according to abatement efficiencies (see details in SI).

199

Defining scenarios. Effects of treatment technologies on emissions of NH3, N2O and CH4

200

from manure, and the N and P flows in the manure management chain of the EU-27 were

201

further examined through scenario analyses. The assessment focuses on exploring the whole

202

management chain impacts and the interactions between gas emissions when treatment

203

technologies are implemented. Scenarios are summarized in Table 1. Twelve scenarios (S1-12)

204

with alternative treatment technologies were compared with the reference case of no manure

205

treatment.

206

For all scenarios, it is assumed that an equivalent of 20% of total manure (N) collected

207

from animal houses in each country was processed. For all technologies, the same amount of

208

treated manure are considered, thus allowing technology comparison. The assumption of 20%

209

implementation generally corresponds to the upper bound of the current use of specific

210

treatment in EU countries. For example, 11% of total slurry produced was acidified in

211

Denmark in 2010,14 and nearly 20% in 2015. In Italy, 24% of total slurry was treated by solid-

212

liquid separation.14 Anaerobic digestion was applied to 13-24% of pig and cattle slurry in

10


Page 10 of 29

Page 11 of 29


213

Germany and 20-35% in Italy as well as 30% of pig slurry in Cyprus.21 Nearly one third of

214

chicken manure in the Netherlands was incinerated in 2010 and 15% in UK.14,38

215

Scenarios include increased implementation of single treatment technologies (S1-9) and

216

advanced combination of technologies (S10-12). For scenarios with raw slurry as feedstock

217

(S1-5, S10-12), treatment technologies were considered to be applied to slurry removed from

218

animal houses, with the exception for acidification (S4, S10) that is applied to slurry in the

219

houses (i.e. before removal). For scenarios with solid manure as feedstock, technologies were

220

applied to solid manure removed from houses. The amount of treated slurry or solid manure is

221

assumed to be equivalent to 20% of total manure (i.e. the sum of slurry and solid manure, in

222

terms of N) removed. However, the total amount of treated slurry or solid manure in a few

223

countries can be less than 20% of total manure removed, because the specific manure form

224

assumed to be treated was insufficiently produced (e.g in Bulgaria, Poland and Slovenia

225

where slurry manure accounted for less than 15% of total manure produced; Table S1).

226

Although pyrolysis of solid manure studies have been conducted, this technique has not yet

227

been commercially implemented in Europe.14 In scenario (S9), slow pyrolysis of manure at a

228

temperature of 600°C was considered with the purpose of producing a stabilized biochar. The

229

mass (C, N and P) balance in pyrolysis is detailed in SI (Table S3). Three treatment systems

230

with combinations of technologies were designed (S10-12) based on literature.42,43 In scenario

231

S10, slurries acidified in housing (as S4) are separated by decanter centrifuge before outdoor

232

storage. In scenario S11, slurries removed from housing are separated (as S2), and then the

233

liquid fractions are acidified and the solid fractions are pyrolyzed. In scenario S12, all

234

anaerobically digested slurries (as S3) are assumed to be acidified and immediately separated

235

(centrifuge).

236

Uncertainty analysis. Uncertainty analysis was carried out to achieve insight in how

237

variation in the key parameters in the model affected the results, using a Monte Carlo (MC)

11



238

based method.44 Six groups of parameters were included in this analysis: i) animal numbers, ii)

239

nutrient excretion, iii) emissions from housing and manure storages (e.g. emission factors), iv)

240

manure treatment and v) manure application as well as vi) manure treatment activity data.

241

Parameter uncertainty is shown in Table S4. The model output uncertainty in response to

242

uncertainty of the parameters was quantified for the year 2010, the reference (without manure

243

treatment) and the scenarios (1000 MC runs each). The difference in emissions between the

244

reference and each treatment scenario was statistically analyzed by comparing the MC

245

simulating outputs, using Tukey’ Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test at the 0.05

246

significance level with the 95% confidence interval. In addition, the uncertainty contribution

247

of the six parameter groups to the overall uncertainty was analyzed for the year 2010.

248

249

RESULTS

250

Manure management chain in 2010. Effects of manure treatment on NH3 and non-CO2

251

GHG emissions were relatively small in 2010 (Figure 2). Approximately 6% of total N

252

excreted by housed animals was treated in the EU-27; countries with excretion being treated

253

above this EU average were typically in the EU-15 (except Cyprus; Table S1). Manure

254

treatment altered GHG emissions in a range of -17% to 1% at country level, and on average

255

by -4% at the EU-27 level. These reductions were mainly associated with anaerobic digestion

256

use (Figure 2). Germany, Italy, Denmark, Spain, and the Netherlands had the largest GHG

257

abatement due to manure treatment, sharing 89% of the EU-27 total abatement. In these five

258

countries, anaerobic digestion abated GHG emissions from manure in a range of 1% (in Spain)

259

to 9% (in Germany). Acidification abated 5% of GHG emissions in Denmark, separation 5%

260

in Italy, and composting nearly 3% in Spain (Figure 2).

261

Effects of treatment techniques on NH3 emissions were minor in most EU-27 countries

262

(Figure 2). Reduction in NH3 emissions was relatively large in Denmark due to acidification

12


Page 12 of 29

Page 13 of 29


263

(5%), in Belgium (4%) due to nitrification-denitrification treatment, and in Netherlands and

264

UK (2-3%) due to incineration.

265

Total NH3 emissions from the manure management chain in the EU-27 were 2.5 Tg N and

266

GHG emissions were 86.9 Tg CO2-eq in 2010 (Figure 2a). The amounts of N and P excreted

267

in housings that were applied to land (corrected for NH3 emissions) were 57% (a range of 52-

268

68% among countries; Table S1) and 98%, respectively (Table 2).

269

Scenario analyses - NH3 and GHG emissions. Scenarios with increased implementation

270

of manure treatment technologies (20% of all manure produced in housings) in the EU-27

271

were compared with the reference (without manure treatment; Figure 3).

272

Increased implementation of slurry separation by screw press (S1) or decanter centrifuge

273

(S2) decreased total GHG emissions by 8% and 12%, respectively. This reduction is due to

274

decreased CH4 emissions from storage; the greater reduction from decanter centrifuge is

275

related to the larger fraction of storage of separated solid manure. However, total NH3

276

emissions changed only marginally. Increased adoption of anaerobic digestion (S3) decreased

277

total GHG emissions by 19% (due to a reduction of 17% in CH4 emissions), while NH3

278

emissions were minimally affected. Increased implementation of acidification (S4) decreased

279

both NH3 emissions (mainly from housing and storage) and GHG emissions by 10% and 18%,

280

respectively. Nitrification-denitrification treatment (S5) decreased both NH3 emissions from

281

storage and treatment systems (by 3%) and from manure applied to land (5%). Emissions of

282

N2O increased by 28% due to nitrification-denitrification treatment, which was partly off-set

283

by lower CH4 emissions (18%). Nitrification-denitrification use resulted in an increase of 6%

284

in total GHG emissions from the manure management chain (Figure 3).

285

Composting of solid manure (S6) slightly changed total NH3 emissions. Increased

286

emissions during composting were offset by lower emissions following application of

287

compost to land. Composting decreased GHG emissions by 7% relative to the reference.

13



288

Thermal drying (S7), incineration (S8) and slow pyrolysis (S9) of solid manure decreased

289

both NH3 (9-11%) and GHG emissions (11-12%). In these three scenarios (S7-9), decreased

290

GHG emissions were due to reduction in both CH4 emissions from storage systems and N2O

291

emissions from fields relative to the reference; NH3 emissions also decreased during manure

292

storage and land application (Figure 3).

293

Acidification followed by separation of acidified slurry (S10) decreased NH3 and GHG

294

emissions similarly to acidification use alone (S4). Centrifuge separation followed by

295

acidification of liquid fractions and pyrolysis of solid fractions (S11) decreased NH3

296

emissions by 7% and GHG emissions by 20%. Anaerobic digestion in combination with

297

acidification and centrifuge (S12) had lower NH3 emissions compared to anaerobic digestion

298

alone (S3), and had similar reduction potential of GHG emissions (Figure 3).

299

Scenario analyses – nutrient recovery and content. The amount of total N applied to

300

land, in terms of percentage of total N excreted in housing in the EU-27 increased from 57%

301

to 60-61% due to acidification treatment (S4, S10, S12; Table 2). Nitrogen recovery however

302

decreased to 48% with incineration (S8) and to 52% with nitrification-denitrification (S5) and

303

slow pyrolysis (S9). Other technologies changed N recovery only marginally (Table 2).

304

The N recovery of treated manure varied from 2% (incineration) to 87% (acidification).

305

The N/P ratio varied from 3.4 to 10.7 in liquid manure products from treatment, compared to

306

a mean of 3.5 in raw slurry. For solid manure products, the N/P ratio ranged from 0.1 to 3.2 in

307

comparison to 3.0 for raw solid manure (Table 2).

308

Uncertainty. The uncertainty (expressed as coefficient of variation) was 16% for total NH3

309

emissions, 20% for GHG emissions and 6% for the N recovery in 2010. Emission factors for

310

manure in housing and storage are the main factor contributing to the overall uncertainty in

311

total NH3 emissions (70%) and GHG emissions (39%). Manure application emission factors

312

contributed 50% to the overall GHG emission uncertainty. Manure treatment activity data and

14


Page 14 of 29

Page 15 of 29


313

associated emission parameters contributed less than 1% to the overall emission uncertainty in

314

2010 (Figure S2).

315

The differences in emissions between reference and scenarios were statistically significant,

316

except for S1-3 (separation techniques and anaerobic digestion; regarding NH3 emissions) and

317

for S6 (composting; both NH3 and GHG emissions) (Figure 3).

318 319

DISCUSSION

320

Manure treatment in EU. Anaerobic digestion and solid-liquid separation are the most

321

popular treatment technologies in Europe. Anaerobic digestion was estimated to have the

322

largest contribution to overall GHG mitigation of all treatment technologies (Figure 2).

323

Germany and Denmark have been most successful in promoting anaerobic digestion. The

324

success is due to national government support (e.g. investment support for construction and

325

subsidies on bioenergy delivery) and the enforcement of EU environmental regulations (e.g.

326

Nitrates Directive, Renewable Energy Directive).45 The Danish government proposed a target

327

of using 50% of the manure produced for renewable energy by 2020. This target would

328

essentially be met through an expansion of biogas plants.46 Slurry separation has been adopted

329

by livestock farms in many countries of EU-27 (particularly Italy and Portugal), which

330

decreased GHG emissions (Figure 2). The reduction is achieved by lowering CH4 emissions

331

from storage of separated solid fractions.12 Also, it was assumed that the slurry was not stored

332

prior to separation, thus the reported GHG reduction due to separation can be the maximum

333

estimates. Anaerobic digestion and slurry separation did not change NH3 emissions

334

significantly (Figure 2).

335

Adoption of treatment technologies except anaerobic digestion and solid-liquid separation

336

was concentrated in a few specific countries, therefore their contributions were limited at the

337

EU-27 level. Slurry acidification with the purpose of NH3 abatement is only used in Denmark,

15



338

which also reduced CH4 emissions from slurry.10 The CH4 emission reduction is attributed to

339

the inhibition of methanogenesis due to acidic conditions and high concentrations of sulphate

340

(which is an electron acceptor) and sulphide (which is toxic).47,48 Poultry manure incineration

341

is used in the Netherlands and UK. There is evidence that CH4 and N2O emissions from

342

manure incineration are negligible, and the electricity production ‘saves’ emissions by

343

replacing fossil fuel combustion.38 Composting occurs in many countries on small scale units.

344

A meta-analysis indicates that composting tends to variably decrease N2O and CH4 emissions

345

compared to conventional static storage of solid waste.27 Although manure treatment is still

346

marginally used in Europe, many techniques (e.g. anaerobic digestion, acidification,

347

incineration) significantly contribute to decreases in GHG and/or NH3 emissions. Therefore, it

348

is important to take manure treatment into account for national emission inventories.

349

Implications of scenario analyses. Scenario analyses indicate that processing 20% of the

350

total manure produced from housings would decrease NH3 emissions by 0 to 11% and alter

351

GHG emissions by -20 to +6% from animal manure in the EU-27, relative to the reference

352

(Figure 3). Both NH3 and GHG emissions strongly decreased in scenarios with acidification

353

(S4, S10-12), and to a lesser extent with thermal drying (S7), incineration (S8) and pyrolysis

354

(S9) (Figure 3).

355

Manure N is a major source (81%) of NH3 emissions from agriculture in Europe.49 It has

356

been reported that implementation of an optimal combination of NH3 mitigation measures

357

(covered manure storages, low-emission application, etc.) would decrease total NH3

358

emissions in the EU-27 by 316 Gg N.18 Results suggest that processing 20% of the total

359

manure production from housings would have comparable emission abatement (180-275 Gg

360

N; S4-5, S7-12). A number of manure treatment technologies (e.g. slurry acidification,

361

incineration, pyrolysis) approaching the reported level may also have potential to mitigate

16


Page 16 of 29

Page 17 of 29


362

GHG emissions (Figure 3). Conventional NH3 abatement measures minimally affect or

363

increase GHG emissions.11,18

364

Nitrification-denitrification treatment increased GHG emissions due to increased N2O

365

emissions from the reactor, despite CH4 emission reductions (Figure 3). Emissions of N2O

366

from nitrification-denitrification ranged from 1 to 20% of the slurry N input.25,34–36 The IPCC

367

default N2O EFs for raw slurry storage have a much smaller range: 0-0.5%.28 Emissions of

368

N2O from nitrification-denitrification treatment may be decreased by increasing the residence

369

time of the slurry in the denitrification reactor or by a better controlling molasses addition

370

(through measurement of the redox potential).35,50 Minimizing unwanted side effects is

371

especially important for Brittany (France) and Flanders (Belgium) where nitrification-

372

denitrification treatment has been implemented to decrease the manure N surplus.33

373

Increasing the efficiency of manure N and P use as fertilizer is economically beneficial

374

because it reduces the reliance on chemical fertilizers. However, scenarios with nitrification-

375

denitrification (S5), incineration (S8) and slow pyrolysis (S9) have an estimated low recovery

376

fraction available for land application (Table 2). These technologies cannot be considered

377

sustainable from a resource use efficiency point of view, as they convert the majority of N

378

(about 65% to 100%) to a form (dinitrogen gas) that can no longer be used for

379

fertilization.25,38 During these treatments (S5, S8-9), a significant fraction of the carbon in the

380

manure is also lost, reducing the organic matter input to soil. In the manure incineration

381

scenario (S8), the N loss equals to 8% of mineral N fertilizer consumed in EU in 2010. In

382

livestock-rich regions that produce more manure N than crops need, these technologies may

383

help lower N surpluses. Acidification (S4, S10, S12) increased manure N recovery and the

384

N/P ratios because of the saving of N from volatilization (Table 2). Slurry acidification

385

increases the N fertilizer equivalent value by about 25% compared to raw slurry.30,51

17



386

Phosphate rock is a non-renewable resource scarce in EU where more than 95% of mineral

387

P fertilizer is imported.52 For all manure treatment scenarios, the total P recovery estimates

388

did not decrease (Table 2). Nevertheless, the P availability for crops (in terms of first year P

389

fertilizer equivalent value) varied from less than 20% for ash residues to 80%-100% for

390

acidified slurry or separated liquid fractions.15 Manure treatment generates manure products

391

that vary in N/P ratios (0.1-10.7; Table 2). The use of slurry separation resulted in liquid

392

fractions with higher N/P ratios and solid fractions with lower N/P ratios than untreated

393

manure (Table 2), because of the higher separation efficiency of P than that of N.53 The large

394

fraction of N in manure was emitted during incineration and the amount of P remained

395

constant during incineration, which leads to low N/P ratios in ash. The ash as a PK fertilizer is

396

odorless and sterile and has a lower mass and volume than raw manure, which is suitable for

397

export to regions with a high P demand.38 Therefore, manure treatment provides opportunities

398

to tailor manure products to better meet specific crop nutrient demands.

399

Green energy production from anaerobic digestion and incineration of manure is a potential

400

pathway to achieving the EU Renewable Energy target; at least 27% of the total energy needs

401

come from renewables by 2030.54 Green energy can reduce CO2 emissions by replacing heat

402

and electricity produced from fossil fuels. Net energy production from anaerobic digestion

403

(S3) is estimated at 1.7-2.8 Mtoe (Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent), assuming an energy

404

surplus of 50-80% in biogas plants used for heat and electricity cogeneration.12,32 5.5-8.7 Tg

405

CO2-eq would be avoided, assuming an emission factor of 0.074 kg CO2 MJ-1 on average for

406

power production from fossil fuel (21% coal, 46% petroleum and 33% gas) in the EU-

407

27.9,12,32 The avoided CO2 emission is equivalent to 6-10% of GHG emissions estimated for

408

the manure management chain in the EU-27 in 2010.

409

These scenario analyses illustrate that manure treatment technologies can mitigate GHG

410

and/or NH3 emissions from the manure management chain. Increasing use of these

18


Page 18 of 29

Page 19 of 29


411

technologies may contribute to achieving the NH3 emission targets of the National Emission

412

Ceiling Directive (Directive 2001/81/EC), and GHG emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol

413

and Paris Agreement on Climate Change.55 Slurry acidification, incineration and pyrolysis are

414

manure treatment technologies that reduce both NH3 and GHG emissions. Acidification

415

increases N recovery, whereas incineration and pyrolysis can be used to reduce manure N

416

surpluses in regions with high animal density. Solid-liquid separation produces manure

417

products with diverse N and P contents, which enable farmers to better meet crop-specific

418

nutrient demands. Combining anaerobic digestion with acidification or with other NH3

419

mitigation measures (for storage of digested slurry) is needed to achieve abatement of both

420

GHG and NH3 emissions.

421

422

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

423

Supporting Information Available: Detailed description of model calculations, data sources,

424

and uncertainty analyses, and supporting figures and tables as mentioned in the text. This

425

material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

426

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

427

This research has received funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the

428

European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013/under REA grant

429

agreement no 289887. The results and conclusions achieved reflect only the author’s view and

430

the Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

431

REFERENCES

432

(1)

Galloway, J. N.; Dentener, F. J.; Capone, D. G.; Boyer, E. W.; Howarth, R. W.; Seitzinger, S. P.; Asner, G. P.; Cleveland, C. C.; Green, P. A.; Holland, E. A.; et al. Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present, and Future. Biogeochemistry 2004, 70, 153–226.

(2)

Oenema, O.; Wrage, N.; Velthof, G. L.; Groenigen, J. W.; Dolfing, J.; Kuikman, P. J. Trends in Global Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Animal Production Systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2005, 72, 51–65.

433 434 435 436 437

19



(3)

Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Roslaes, M.; De Haan, C. Livestock’s long shadow. Environ. issues options. FAO report, Rome, Italy. 390 pp. 2006.

(4)

EEA. European Union emission inventory report 1990–2012 under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP); 2014.

(5)

Oenema, O.; Ju, X.; de Klein, C.; Alfaro, M.; del Prado, A.; Lesschen, J. P.; Zheng, X.; Velthof, G.; Ma, L.; Gao, B.; et al. Reducing nitrous oxide emissions from the global food system. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 9–10, 55–64.

(6)

EEA. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2013 and inventory report 2015, submission to the UNFCCC. 2014, http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php.

(7)

Oenema, O.; Oudendag, D.; Velthof, G. L. Nutrient losses from manure management in the European Union. Livest. Sci. 2007, 112, 261–272.

(8)

Hou, Y.; Bai, Z.; Lesschen, J. P.; Staritsky, I. G.; Sikirica, N.; Ma, L.; Velthof, G. L.; Oenema, O. Feed use and nitrogen excretion of livestock in EU-27. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 218, 232–244.

454

(9)

Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed February 10, 2016).

455

(10)

Hou, Y.; Velthof, G. L.; Oenema, O. Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta-analysis and integrated assessment. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 1293–1312.

438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453

456 457

460

(11) Velthof, G. L.; Oudendag, D.; Witzke, H. P.; Asman, W. a H.; Klimont, Z.; Oenema, O. Integrated assessment of nitrogen losses from agriculture in EU-27 using MITERRAEUROPE. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38, 402–417.

461

(12)

458 459

462 463 464

Sommer, S. G.; Olesen, J. E.; Petersen, S. O.; Weisbjerg, M. R.; Valli, L.; Rohde, L.; Béline, F. Region-specific assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation with different manure management strategies in four agroecological zones. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2009, 15, 2825–2837.

469

(13) Oenema, O.; Bleeker, A.; Braathen, N. A.; Budňáková, M.; Bull, K.; Geupel, M.; Hicks, K.; Hoft, R.; Kozlova, N.; Leip, A.; et al. Nitrogen in current European policies. In The European nitrogen assess ment; Sutton, M. A.; Howard, C. M.; Erisman, J. W.; Billen, G.; Bleeker, A.; Grennfelt, P.; Grinsven, H. van; Grizzetti, B., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 62–81.

470

(14)

Foged, H. L.; Flotats, X.; Blasi, A. B.; Palatsi, J.; Magri, A.; Schelde, K. M. Inventory of manure processing activities in Europe. Tech. Rep. No. I Concern. “Manure Process. Act. Eur. to Eur. Comm. Dir. Environ. 138 pp. 2011.

(15)

Sommer, S. G.; Christensen, M. L.; Schmidt, T.; Jensen, L. S. Animal Manure Recycling: Treatment and Management; 2013.

(16)

Lesschen, J. P.; van den Berg, M.; Westhoek, H. J.; Witzke, H. P.; Oenema, O. Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 16–28.

465 466 467 468

471 472 473 474 475 476 477

20


Page 20 of 29

Page 21 of 29

478


(17)

Weiss, F.; Leip, A. Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: A life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 149, 124–134.

(18)

Oenema, O.; Witzke, H. P.; Klimont, Z.; Lesschen, J. P.; Velthof, G. L. Integrated assessment of promising measures to decrease nitrogen losses from agriculture in EU27. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 133, 280–288.

(19)

Thangarajan, R.; Bolan, N. S.; Tian, G.; Naidu, R.; Kunhikrishnan, A. Role of organic amendment application on greenhouse gas emission from soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 465, 72–96.

(20)

Petersen, S.; Sommer, S.; Beline, F.; Burton, C.; Dach, J.; Dourmad, J.; Leip, a; Misselbrook, T.; Nicholson, F.; Poulsen, H. Recycling of livestock manure in a wholefarm perspective. Livest. Sci. 2007, 112, 180–191.

(21)

UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submi ssions/items/8812.php (accessed October 1, 2015).

(22)

Asman, W. A. H.; Klimont, Z.; Brink, C. A simplified model of nitrogen flows from manure management. IIASA Interim Report IR-11-030; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA): Laxenburg, Austria, 2011.

(23)

Klimont, Z.; Brink, C. Modelling of Emissions of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases from Agricultural Sources in Europe; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA): Laxenburg, Austria, 2004.

(24)

Bittman, S.; Dedina, M.; Howard, C.; Oenema, O.; Sutton, M. Options for Ammonia Mitigation: Guidance from the UNECE Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Edinburgh, UK, 2014.

(25)

Melse, R. W.; Timmerman, M. Sustainable intensive livestock production demands manure and exhaust air treatment technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5506– 5511.

(26)

Van der Heyden, C.; Demeyer, P.; Volcke, E. I. P. Mitigating emissions from pig and poultry housing facilities through air scrubbers and biofilters: State-of-the-art and perspectives. Biosyst. Eng. 2015, 134, 74–93.

(27)

Pardo, G.; Moral, R.; Aguilera, E.; del Prado, A. Gaseous emissions from management of solid waste: a systematic review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 1313–1327.

(28)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Chapter 10. Emissions from livestock and manure management. In: 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture, forestry and other land use.; 2006.

(29)

Petersen, S. O.; Hutchings, N. J.; Hafner, S. D.; Sommer, S. G.; Hjorth, M.; Jonassen, K. E. N. Ammonia abatement by slurry acidification: A pilot-scale study of three finishing pig production periods. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 216, 258–268.

(30)

Kai, P.; Pedersen, P.; Jensen, J. E.; Hansen, M. N.; Sommer, S. G. A whole-farm assessment of the efficacy of slurry acidification in reducing ammonia emissions. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 148–154.

479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518

21



519

(31)

Hamelin, L.; Wesnæs, M.; Wenzel, H.; Petersen, B. M. Environmental consequences of future biogas technologies based on separated slurry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 5869–5877.

(32)

Miranda, N. D.; Tuomisto, H. L.; McCulloch, M. D. Meta-Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Anaerobic Digestion Processes in Dairy Farms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 5211–5219.

(33)

Bernet, N.; Béline, F. Challenges and innovations on biological treatment of livestock effluents. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5431–5436.

(34)

Willers, H. C.; Derikx, P. J. L.; Have, P. J. W. Ten; Vijn, T. K. Emission of Ammonia and Nitrous Oxide from Aerobic Treatment of Veal Calf Slurry. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1996, 63, 345–352.

(35)

Béline, F.; Martinez, J. Nitrogen transformations during biological aerobic treatment of pig slurry: effect of intermittent aeration on nitrous oxide emissions. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 225–228.

(36)

Loyon, L.; Guiziou, F.; Beline, F.; Peu, P. Gaseous Emissions (NH3, N2O, CH4 and CO2) from the aerobic treatment of piggery slurry—Comparison with a conventional storage system. Biosyst. Eng. 2007, 97, 472–480.

(37)

Ghaly, A. E.; Alhattab, M. Drying Poultry Manure for Pollution Potential Reduction and Production of Organic Fertilizer. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 9, 88–102.

(38)

Billen, P.; Costa, J.; Van der Aa, L.; Van Caneghem, J.; Vandecasteele, C. Electricity from poultry manure: a cleaner alternative to direct land application. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 467–475.

(39)

Christel, W.; Bruun, S.; Magid, J.; Jensen, L. S. Phosphorus availability from the solid fraction of pig slurry is altered by composting or thermal treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 169, 543–551.

(40)

Brassard, P.; Palacios, J. H.; Godbout, S.; Bussières, D.; Lagacé, R.; Larouche, J.-P.; Pelletier, F. Comparison of the gaseous and particulate matter emissions from the combustion of agricultural and forest biomasses. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 155, 300– 306.

(41)

Fernandez-Lopez, M.; Puig-Gamero, M.; Lopez-Gonzalez, D.; Avalos-Ramirez, A.; Valverde, J.; Sanchez-Silva, L. Life cycle assessment of swine and dairy manure: Pyrolysis and combustion processes. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 182, 184–192.

(42)

Gioelli, F.; Dinuccio, E.; Cuk, D.; Rollè, L.; Balsari, P. Acidification with sulfur of the separated solid fraction of raw and co-digested pig slurry: Effect on greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions during storage. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 343–349.

(43)

Regueiro, I.; Coutinho, J.; Gioelli, F.; Balsari, P.; Dinuccio, E.; Fangueiro, D. Acidification of raw and co-digested pig slurries with alum before mechanical separation reduces gaseous emission during storage of solid and liquid fractions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 227, 42–51.

(44)

Zhu, B.; Kros, J.; Lesschen, J. P.; Staritsky, I. G.; de Vries, W. Assessment of uncertainties in greenhouse gas emission profiles of livestock sectors in Africa, Latin

520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559

22


Page 22 of 29

Page 23 of 29


America and Europe. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 16, 1571–1582.

560 561

(45)

Edwards, J.; Othman, M.; Burn, S. A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 815–828.

(46)

Aftale om Grøn Vækst. Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. Copenhagen, Denmark. http://mst.dk/virksomhed-myndighed/landbrug/politiskeaftaler/groen-vaekst/.

562 563 564 565 566

569

(47) Ottosen, L. D. M.; Poulsen, H. V.; Nielsen, D. A.; Finster, K.; Nielsen, L. P.; Revsbech, N. P. Observations on microbial activity in acidified pig slurry. Biosyst. Eng. 2009, 102, 291–297.

570

(48)

Petersen, S. O.; Andersen, A. J.; Eriksen, J. Effects of cattle slurry acidification on ammonia and methane evolution during storage. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 88–94.

(49)

Velthof, G. L.; Lesschen, J. P.; Webb, J.; Pietrzak, S.; Miatkowski, Z.; Pinto, M.; Kros, J.; Oenema, O. The impact of the Nitrates Directive on nitrogen emissions from agriculture in the EU-27 during 2000-2008. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 1225– 1233.

(50)

Melse, R. W.; Verdoes, N. Evaluation of Four Farm-scale Systems for the Treatment of Liquid Pig Manure. Biosyst. Eng. 2005, 92, 47–57.

(51)

Sørensen, P.; Eriksen, J. Effects of slurry acidification with sulphuric acid combined with aeration on the turnover and plant availability of nitrogen. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 131, 240–246.

(52)

van Dijk, K. C.; Lesschen, J. P.; Oenema, O. Phosphorus flows and balances of the European Union Member States. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 542, 1078–1093.

(53)

Hjorth, M.; Christensen, K. V.; Christensen, M. L.; Sommer, S. G. Solid—liquid separation of animal slurry in theory and practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 153–180.

(54)

European Commission. Directive 2009/28/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, L 140/16, 16–62.

(55)

UNFCCC. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (accessed October 1, 2015).

567 568

571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592

23



593

Table 1. Description of manure treatment scenariosa Scenarios

594

Origins of feedstock

Brief description of treatment systems

Manure products Liquid form Solid form S1: Screw press Slurry (cattle, pigs) Screw press; LF, SF are not treated further LF (liquid fraction) SF (solid fraction) S2: Decanter centrifuge Slurry (cattle, pigs) Decanter centrifuge; LF, SF are not treated further LF SF S3: Anaerobic digestion (AD) Slurry (cattle, pigs) Mesophilic digesters Digestate; LF of digestate SF of digestate S4: Acidification (Acid) Slurry (cattle, pigs) Acidifying slurry in housing and storage Acidified slurry S5: Nitrification-denitrification Slurry (cattle, pigs) Nitrification-denitrification b Effluents Sludge; SF S6: Composting Solid (cattle, pigs, poultry) Composting Compost S7: Thermal drying Solid (cattle, pigs, poultry) Thermal drying, with air scrubbers Dried pellets Ash residues S8: Incineration Solid (cattle, pigs, poultry) Pre-drying and incineration S9: Pyrolysis Solid (cattle, pigs, poultry) Slow pyrolysis operated at ~600 °C Biochar S10: Acid-centrifuge Slurry (cattle, pigs) Acidification -> centrifuge Acidified LF Acidified SF S11: Centrifuge-Acid, pyrolysis Slurry (cattle, pigs) Centrifuge -> acidification (LF); pyrolysis (SF) Acidified LF Biochar S12: AD-Acid-centrifuge Slurry (cattle, pigs) Anaerobic digestion -> acidification -> centrifuge Acidified digested LF Acidified digested SF a Parameter inputs (e.g. emissions factors) are shown in supporting information (e.g. Table S3). b Decanter centrifuge is considered as pre-treatment unit.

595

24


Page 24 of 29

Page 25 of 29


596

Table 2. Amounts of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in manure applied to land, expressed in percent of the amounts of N and P excreted in

597

housing (i.e. N and P recovery), in the EU-27 in 2010 and in scenariosa All manure (treated and untreated) N recovery P recovery (%) (%)

598 599 600

Treated manure N recovery (%)

P recovery (%)

N/P ratio in manure productsb

Liquid form Solid form In 2010 57 98 -c 3.5 (untreated) 3.0 (untreated) Scenarios: single technique, slurry S1: Screw press 58 98 63 100 3.6 2.0 S2: Decanter centrifuge 58 98 61 100 7.5 1.2 S3: Anaerobic digestion (AD) 58 98 62 100 3.4; 5.0 1.2 S4: Acidification (Acid) 61 98 87 100 4.4 S5: Nitrification-denitrification 52 98 33 100 8.6 2.9; 1.1 Scenarios: single technique, solid manure S6: Composting 58 99 60 100 3.2 S7: Thermal drying 58 99 57 100 3.1 S8: Incineration 48 99 2 100 0.1 S9: Pyrolysis 52 99 25 100 2.1 Scenarios: combined techniques, slurry S10: Acid-centrifuge 61 98 84 100 10.7 1.5 S11: Centrifuge-Acid, pyrolysis 57 98 61 100 9.7 0.5 S12: AD-Acid-centrifuge 60 98 74 100 10.0 1.4 a Emissions of ammonia were subtracted from the N in applied manure for calculating the N recovery. b Manure products from respective treatment technologies are explained in Table 1 (liquid manure products from AD include digested slurry and liquid fraction separated from digestate; solid manure products from nitrification-denitrification include sludge and solid fraction separated from slurry). c Not applicable.

601

25



602

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the manure management chain with manure treatment

603

technologies (highlighted in grey) discussed in this study. The arrows indicate the main flows

604

of manure products. The clouds show emission sources of ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide

605

(N2O) and methane (CH4) from animal manure.

606

Figure 2. Emissions of ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) from

607

manure management chains in countries of EU-27 in 2010 (a), and estimated effects of

608

current manure treatment on NH3 and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by comparing

609

situations with and without treatment (b) (positive = increased emission; negative = emission

610

mitigation).

611

Figure 3. Changes in emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) (upper panel) and

612

in ammonia (NH3) emissions (bottom panel) from the manure management chain following

613

the implementation of manure treatment scenarios, relative to a situation without manure

614

treatment (see text and Table 1). (-)/(+) indicates significant difference (lower/higher; P

Nutrient Recovery and Emissions of Ammonia, Nitrous Oxide, and

Recommend Documents