b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/15375110

Research Paper

Development of a farm-scale, quasi-mechanistic

model to estimate ammonia emissions from
commercial manure-belt layer houses

Xinjie Tong a, Lingying Zhao a,*, Albert J. Heber b, Ji-Qin Ni b

a
Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State University, 590 Woody Hayes Dr.,
Columbus, OH 43210, USA
b
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

article info
Poultry production significantly contributes to atmospheric ammonia (NH3) emissions,
Article history: causing concerns over their environmental impacts and the effects on human and bird
Received 15 December 2019 health inside the poultry houses. A model is needed to estimate NH3 emissions from
Received in revised form poultry facilities in order to develop effective mitigation strategies and science-based
7 May 2020 regulations. The laboratory-scale mechanistic NH3 emission model developed by Tong,
Accepted 11 May 2020 Zhao, Heber, and Ni (2020) requires extensive monitoring and laboratory work for the in-
puts and therefore cannot be conveniently used by producers or regulatory agencies. Based
on this mechanistic model, a farm-scale model was developed for estimating dynamic NH3
Keywords: emission rates from commercial manure-belt layer houses. Sub-models were developed to
Air quality estimate the inputs of the mechanistic model from farm-scale conditions that are
Animal agriculture commonly known during poultry production. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models
Computational fluid dynamics and analyses of manure characteristics were used to estimate air conditions, manure
Emission model properties, and NH3 emission areas inside layer houses. The model estimated daily NH3
Poultry housing emission from typical commercial manure-belt layer houses for given dates with input
Regulation data consisting of hen inventory, ambient air temperature, house ventilation mode and
rate, and manure management practices. Model performance was evaluated by compari-
son with NH3 emission data from four commercial manure-belt layer houses with different
ventilation systems. Uncertainties of 26e32% relative to the mechanistic model were ob-
tained based on the uncertainties of individual sub-models along with their corresponding
sensitivities. The model had an acceptable performance during ordinary egg production (p-
value ¼ 0.10e0.61), but it needs further development for special events such as moulting
and introduction of new flocks.
© 2020 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tong.129@buckeyemail.osu.edu (X. Tong), zhao.119@osu.edu (L. Zhao), heber@purdue.edu (A.J. Heber), jiqin@pur-
due.edu (J.-Q. Ni).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.05.008
1537-5110/© 2020 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
68 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7

Nomenclature ni Weighting coefficient accounting for number of

2 cages included in ith zone
A Area of the house component, m
NMSE Normalised mean square error
As Total surface area of manure belts in the whole
p Differential static pressure, Pa
house, m2
Q Ventilation rate, m3 s1
cX Sensitivity coefficient of factor X, %
Qj Ventilation rates in case j, m3 s1
CFD computational fluid dynamics
QM Ventilation rate for moisture control, m3 s1
Cg;∞ NH3 concentration in free air stream, mg m3
Q0 Airflow rate of individual fan, m3 s1
Co Measured values
QT Ventilation rate for temperature control, m3 s1
cp Specific heat of air, J kg1  C1
r Correlation coefficient
Cp Predicted values
SHP Sensible heat production from layers, W
D Degradation factor
T Air temperature,  C
Dcondition Design factor based on conditions of the fans
TAN Total ammoniacal nitrogen, g g1 wet based
Doutlet Design factor based on type of fan outlet
Tin Indoor temperature,  C
Dshutter Design factor based on type of fan shutter
Tout Outdoor temperature,  C
d Number of days after the most recent manure
To Given ambient temperature,  C
removal
Ti;j Cage temperature in ith zone in case j,  C
EPA Environmental protection agency (USA)
To;j Ambient temperature used in cage j,  C
EPCRA Emergency planning and community right to
Ti;v > 0:2 Estimated cage temperature in ith zone when air
know act (USA)
velocity > 0.2 m s1
EF NH3 emission flux, mg m2 h1
0 Ti;v0:2 Estimated cage temperature in ith zone when air
ER NH3 emission rate based on hourly averages, kg
velocity  0.2 m s1
d1
0 U Thermal conductance of house component, W
ERi NH3 emission rate of the house based on
m2  C1
conditions in zone i, kg d1
uðXÞ Standard deviation of factor X
FAC2 Fraction of two
uc ðNH3 ERÞ Uncertainty in estimating NH3 emission rate, %
FANS Fan assessment numeration system
v Air velocity, m s1
FB Fractional bias
vi;j Air velocity in cages in ith zone in case j, m s1
Kd Dissociation constant for manure
VG Geometric variance
Kd0 Dissociation constant for water-NH3 solution
win Humidity ratio of indoor air, kg [water] kg1 [dry
KG Convective mass transfer coefficient, m h1
air]
Kh Henry’s law constant, (g [NH3eN] m3 [air])/(g
wout Humidity ratio of outdoor air, kg [water] kg1 [dry
[NH3eN] m3 [solution])
air]
MC Moisture content, %
WVP Water vapour production from layers, g s1
MG Geometric mean bias
a Dissociation constant ratio
n Number of operating fans
b Proportion of manure coverage on the belts
N Total number of zones in a house
r Density of ambient air, kg m3
NAEMS National air emission monitoring study

regulatory agencies to assess environmental impacts, for

1. Introduction
Poultry production contributes significantly to ammonia (NH3)
emissions to the atmosphere and they have caused concerns
about human health, animal health, and the environment
(Liang et al., 2005; Maliselo & Nkonde, 2015; OSHA, 2019). Prior
to an exemption for farms early 2019, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulated NH3 emission from animal
facilities by requiring mandatory reporting of NH3 emissions
under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know
Act (EPCRA). One of the problems with implementation of the
EPCRA reporting requirements was that no reliable tool was
available for producers or the regulatory agencies to estimate
NH3 emissions from different farms. The capability of esti-
mating NH3 emissions from animal facilities with reasonable
assurance is important for local decision makers and state
producers to effectively manage and mitigate NH3 emissions,
and for researchers to study the transport and fate of NH3 in
the atmosphere using atmospheric dispersion models.
Through the National Air Emission Monitoring Study
(NAEMS) (Heber et al., 2008, pp. 199e206; Ni, Cortus, & Heber,
2011), long-term high-quality measurement data of NH3
emissions from different animal facilities were obtained.
These measurements are limited in representing NH3 emis-
sions from other animal facilities with different weather
conditions, housing structures, and farm management prac-
tices (Chepete, Xin, & Li, 2011; Ni et al., 2012). Nonetheless, the
NAEMS and other measurement data can be used to develop
and validate models for estimations of NH3 emissions from
farms.
Among various types of models, mechanistic models have
advantages in accounting for key processes and conditions
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7
involved in NH3 emission. For layer manure, these processes
include 1) partitioning of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), the
sum of ammonia (NH3) and ammonium (NHþ þ
4 ), into NH4 in the
solid and liquid phases and NH3 in the liquid phase, 2) con-
version of liquid-phase NH3 to gas-phase NH3 at the manure
surface, and 3) convective mass transfer of NH3 gas at the
manure surface to the free airstream facilitated by airflow
(Liu, Wang, Beasley, & Shah, 2009; Ni, 1999; Tong, Zhao, Heber,
and Ni, 2020). In a laboratory-scale mechanistic model for
estimating NH3 emissions from layer manure (Tong et al.,
2020), the key inputs included air temperature and velocity
at manure surface, and manure properties, such as pH and
moisture content (MC).
The major limitation of the mechanistic model for practical
uses is that its inputs are not readily available for commercial
poultry production operations. Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) modelling has proven capacities to predict three-
dimensional distributions of airflow and environmental con-
ditions in animal production facilities (Bjerg, Svidt, Zhang,
Morsing, & Johnsen, 2002; Kim et al., 2008; Blanes-Vidal, Gui-
jarro, Balasch, & Torres, 2008; Tong, Hong, & Zhao, 2019a,
2019b, 2019c). Manure properties can be estimated based on
long-term measurements in typical commercial layer houses.
To assist producers and regulatory agencies in their efforts to
conveniently estimate NH3 emissions without extra labora-
tory work or monitoring efforts, the key inputs of the mech-
anistic model need to be estimated based on farm-scale
factors that are readily available at farms through statistical
modelling of manure properties and CFD modelling of envi-
ronmental conditions.
This study aims to develop a farm-scale NH3 emission
estimation model based on a published mechanistic model
(Tong et al., 2020) to estimate NH3 emission from typical
commercial manure-belt layer houses for potential regulatory
uses and evaluation of mitigation strategies.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Mechanistic model for estimating ammonia
emissions
According to the mechanistic model developed by Tong et al.
(2020), NH3 emissions from layer manure can be estimated
using Eq. (1), which mathematically models different pro-
cesses involved in NH3 emissions. Multiple empirical equa-
tions (Eqs. (2)e(6)) can be used to calculate the input
parameters required for Eq. (1).
( 1  
10pH TAN  106
EF ¼ 1þ   Kh  1000
Kd 1  MC=100
  ) (1)
100  MC
  Cg;∞  KG
MC
where EF is NH3 emission flux, mg m2 h1; pH is pH value of
layer manure; Kd is dissociation constant of layer manure (Eqs.
(2)e(4)); TAN is wet-based concentration of TAN, which is
assumed 6.943  103 g g1 of layer manure; MC is moisture
content of layer manure, %; Kh is Henry’s Law constant,
defined as (g [NH3eN] m3 [air])/(g [NH3eN] m3 [solution]),
69
and is calculated using Eq. (5); Cg;∞ is NH3 concentration in the
free air stream above the manure, which is assumed to be
represented by the NH3 concentration in the layer house, mg
m3; and KG is convective mass transfer coefficient (m h1),
which is calculated with Eq. (6).
Kd ¼ aKd0 (2)
a ¼ 10ð10:558621:43143pH0:15670MCþ0:01885pH,MCÞ ; MC  50%
(3)
a ¼ 10ð2:6480:42013pH0:00072MCÞ ; MC > 50%
 
2788
0:05Tþ273:15
Kd0 ¼ 10 (4)
2  3
1825
6:123Tþ273:15
0:2138 4 5
Kh ¼ 10 (5)
T þ 273:15
KG ¼  27:9 þ 2:08T  9:40v þ 0:638Tv  0:0373T2 (6)
where a is the dissociation constant ratio; Kd0 is the dissocia-
tion constant of the water-NH3 solution; T is the air temper-
ature (ºC) above the manure, which is assumed to be
represented by the air temperature in the bird zone; and v is
the average air velocity (m s1) inside the tunnel or cages. The
key inputs to Eqs. (2)e(6) include air temperature and velocity
in the bird zone, and manure pH and MC.
2.2. Manure-belt layer houses for model validation
Typical manure-belt layer houses use either cross ventilation,
tunnel ventilation, or a combination of the two systems. As
examples of these buildings, two manure-belt layer houses in
Indiana, USA (denoted as “IN2B00 ) were representative of cross-
ventilated houses. Two newly-built manure-belt layer houses
with tunnel ventilation in Ohio, USA (denoted as “OH2B-T00 )
were representative of tunnel-ventilated houses. In addition,
two manure-belt layer houses retrofitted from a high-rise
system in Ohio (denoted as “OH2B00 ) were representative of a
combination of the two ventilation types. Among these
houses, long-term continuous monitoring data of the NH3
emission rates were only available for the IN2B and OH2B
layer houses. The measurement data from IN2B and OH2B
layer houses were therefore used for model validation.
2.2.1. Cross ventilation houses at IN2B
The two IN2B layer houses, B-A and B-B, were 140 m long,
19.5 m wide, and 11.5 m high at the ridge and 7 m high at the
sidewalls (Ni et al., 2017). There were 250,110 ± 10,249 and
241,487 ± 30,937 laying hens in B-A and B-B, respectively.
Laying hens were stocked in seven rows of 10-tier cages, with
five tiers on the second floor and five tiers on the first floor.
Manure belts underneath the cages were moved 1/3 of the
total length every day except Sunday to remove and transport
manure through drying tunnels. The manure was dried for 3 d
in the drying tunnels before being conveyed to a manure
storage shed. A total of 88 exhaust fans of 1.32 m diameter
were installed in each house, including eight fans on the east
end wall and 40 fans on each of the two side walls. Fourteen of
the 88 fans were variable-speed fans. Each house had seven
70 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7
adjustable air inlet openings in the ceiling, one above and
along each row of cages. The exhaust fans were controlled in
12 stages based on indoor air temperature setpoints.
New birds were introduced at the beginning of the moni-
toring study, which started on Jan. 01, 2008, in B-A and from
Oct. 4 to Nov. 8, 2008 in B-B. Moulting of birds occurred from
Jan. 10 to Feb. 28, 2009 in B-A and from Dec. 05, 2009 to Jan. 16,
2010 in B-B. More details about the IN2B monitoring were
provided by Ni et al. (2012; 2017).
2.2.2. Tunnel ventilation houses at OH2B-T
The two OH2B-T layer houses (Tong et al., 2019a) were 137 m
long, 19 m wide, and 6.7 m high and equipped with seven rows
of 9-tier cages. Each house was capable of stocking up to
196,000 laying hens. Manure was removed from the manure
belts twice a week. A total of 44 single-speed 1.32 m diameter
exhaust fans were installed in the house, 22 fans in each end
wall. There were eleven adjustable inlet baffles on the ceiling,
where seven inlet baffles were located in the middle of the
ceiling and four of them were located near the end walls. The
ventilation operation was automatically controlled in 11
stages based on indoor air temperature setpoints. An air
recirculation system was used for manure drying. More de-
tails about the tunnel-ventilated manure-belt layer houses
were provided by Tong et al. (2019a).
2.2.3. Mixed ventilation houses at OH2B
The two OH2B layer houses, houses 1 and 2, were retrofitted
from two-story high-rise deep-pit layer houses (Tong, Hong, &
Zhao, 2019b). The houses were 122 m long, 19.5 m wide, 7.7 m
high at the ridge, and 6 m high at sidewalls. There were
153,588 ± 9751 and 155,183 ± 7207 laying hens in houses 1 and
2, respectively. Eight rows of 8-tier stacked cages had been
installed to stock laying hens, with three tiers located on the
first floor and five tiers located on the second floor. A concrete
floor separated the two levels with openings underneath each
row of cages. Manure collected on the manure belts was
removed every Monday and Thursday to one end of the layer
houses and transported using trucks to a separate manure
composting facility. A total of 48 single-speed 1.22 m diameter
exhaust fans were installed in the house: 12 fans on each of
two end walls on the second floor and 12 fans on each of two
side walls on the first floor. A continuous air inlet was located
at the centre of the ceiling and had two baffles with adjustable
openings. The exhaust fans were controlled in 10 stages based
on indoor air temperature setpoints. The houses had a com-
bination of tunnel and cross ventilation. Moulting was
induced from July 21 to September 1, 2007 in house 2. A new
flock was introduced into house 1 on June 3, 2007. More details
about the OH2B monitoring were provided by Tong et al.
(2019b).
2.3. Determination of house ventilation rate
Airflow rates of some representative exhaust fans at the OH2B
site under various differential static pressure were measured
using a fan assessment numeration system (FANS) (Gates,
Casey, Xin, Wheeler, & Simmons, 2004) to establish a fan
performance curve for the exhaust fans (Tong et al.,
Unpublished Results). By comparing the actual fan
performance curve with the manufacturing fan performance
curve (Eq. (7)) measured by the Bioenvironmental and Struc-
tural Systems (BESS) Laboratory of the University of Illinois, a
degradation factor (Eq. (8)) of 0.591 was determined to account
for airflow reduction effects of the exhaust fans used in OH2B
houses caused by age of the fans, loose belts, and dust accu-
mulation on the fan blades. House ventilation rate was
calculated (Eq. (8)) by multiplying the average airflow rate per
fan calculated as a function of differential static pressure by
the number of operating fans, which were detected using vi-
bration sensors (Model OSU-06, Ohio State University, Co-
lumbus, OH, USA) (Darr, Zhao, Ni, & Gecik, 2007).
Q0 ¼  0:0004jpj2  0:0542jpj þ 13:059 (7)
Q ¼ nQ0 D (8)
where Q0 is the airflow rate through one operating fan, m s ; 3 1
p is the differential static pressure of the house, Pa; Q is the
house ventilation rate, m3 s1; n is the number of operating
fans; and D is the degradation factor.
A similar methodology was used to determine house
ventilation rate at the IN2B layer houses (Chai et al., 2012; Ni
et al., 2017). In OH2B-T houses, the ventilation rate was
determined based on multiple measurements of air velocity at
the surface of light traps that cover the fan annex, and a
degradation factor of 0.8 was obtained using the
manufacturing fan curve from the BESS Laboratory (Tong
et al., 2019a).
For producers who cannot conduct on-site measurements,
the house ventilation rates can be estimated using the venti-
lation fan curve, which is usually provided by the fan manu-
facturer or available at the BESS Lab website (http://bess.
illinois.edu), and an experiential estimate of degradation fac-
tor based on the conditions of the fans (Eq. (9); Table 1). In
addition, producers can calculate the ventilation rate in mild
and hot weather using Eq. (10), which is based on an energy
balance of the ventilation process (Lu, Hayes, Stinn, Brown-
brandl, & Xin, 2017). In cold weather, poultry houses main-
tain a fixed minimum ventilation rate, which can be estimated
using Eq. (11).
D ¼ Dcondition  Doutlet  Dshutter (9)
where Qcondition is the design factor based on conditions of the
fans (Table 1); Doutlet is the design factor based on the type of
fan outlet, with a value of 1 for cone outlet and a value of 0.85 if
the outlet is elbow shaped or a partial enclosure; and Dshutter is
the design factor based on type of fan shutter, with a value of 1
for powered shutter and value of 0.95 for non-powered shut-
ters that need to be blown open by the wind.
1 h X  i
QT ¼  SHP  UA  ðTin  Tout Þ (10)
cp  r  ðTin  Tout Þ
WVP
QM ¼ (11)
r  ðwin  wout Þ  1000
where QT is the design ventilation rate for temperature con-
trol, m3 s1; r is ambient air density, kg m3; cp is specific heat
of air, J kg1 ºC1; Tin is indoor temperature, ºC; Tout is outdoor
temperature, ºC; SHP is sensible heat production from layers,
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7 71

Table 1 e Experimental estimates of design factor based on conditions of the fans (Dcondition ).
Level Conditions Dcondition
New Brand new > 0.9
Good Tight belt, well maintained, no visible dust accumulation 0.8e0.9
Average Loose belt, visible dust accumulation 0.6e0.8
Poor Loose belt, poorly maintained, much dust accumulation < 0.6

W; A is area of house component, m2; U is thermal conduc-
tance of house component, W m2 ºC1; QM is design ventila-
tion rate for moisture control, m3 s1; WVP is water vapour
production from layers, g s1; win is humidity ratio of indoor
air, kg water kg1 dry air; and wout is humidity ratio of outdoor
air, kg water kg1 dry air.
2.4. Estimation of thermal and airflow conditions on
manure surface using CFD simulations
2.4.1. CFD simulations
The CFD models developed by Tong et al. (2019a; 2019b; 2019c)
estimated the three-dimensional spatial distributions and
seasonal variations of airflow, thermal environment, and air
pollutant concentrations in commercial manure-belt layer
houses of typical ventilation systems with acceptable accu-
racies (normalised mean square errors of 0.001  0.134). These
CFD models were used for predicting air conditions (i.e.,
temperature and velocity) in cages under various weather
conditions and ventilation rates with modifications on the
boundary conditions to account for different inventories,
house dimensions, and applied ventilation rates in different
houses.
Multiple cases (Table 2) were simulated using the CFD
models to account for typical weather conditions encountered
by commercial manure-belt layer houses in different seasons.
The boundary conditions of these cases were based on the
field measurements at the IN2B, OH2B-T, and OH2B layer
houses as described in section 2.2.
2.4.2. Division of cages into multiple zones
The cages were divided into multiple zones (Fig. 1) based on
their similarities in environmental conditions to account for
the spatial variation of cage temperatures in the whole house.
The zone splitting of cages in one-quarter of a manure-belt
layer house (Fig. 1) was the same as that in the other three
quarters of the house with mirrored symmetry assuming that
housing structure and ventilation operation were symmetric.
Based on simulated air temperatures and velocities in cages
for the three types of layer houses, this zone splitting method
allowed for standard deviation to be smaller than 2.5  C for air
temperature and 0.2 m s1 for air velocity within each zone in
more than 90% of the zones during the summer. The standard
deviation within a zone was higher in winter due to air stag-
nation, which partially contributed to the uncertainty in
estimating NH3 emissions in winter.
The cages in IN2B layer houses were divided (Table 3) based
on their relative locations in the cross-sectional plane (Fig. 1a).
They were not partitioned with respect to part number
(Fig. 1b) because changes in air temperatures and velocities in
cages along the building length were relatively small due to
cross ventilation.
Using a different approach, because the tunnel ventilation
was applied on the second floor, the cages in the OH2B layer
houses were divided (Table 4) based on both the relative lo-
cations in the cross-sectional plane and along the building
length. Because different zones contained different numbers
of cages, the proportion of cages included in each zone was
weighted for the determination of total NH3 emission.

Table 2 e Simulation cases of the CFD models.

House Case # Tout Q Operating Exhaust Fans, number Inlet Opening
( C) (m3 s1)
Sidewall Endwall Opened Inlet # Opening percentage of each inlet (%)
IN2B 1 30 687 80 8 7 r1b-100, r2-100, r3-100, r4-100, r5-100, r6-100, r7-100
2 30 573 80 0 7 r1-100, r2-100, r3-100, r4-100, r5-100, r6-100, r7-100
3 26 360 50 0 7 r1-50, r2-50, r3-50, r4-50, r5-50, r6-50, r7-50
4 20 132 18 0 7 r1-20, r2-20, r3-20, r4-20, r5-20, r6-20, r7-20
5 5 89 14 (v-s)a 0 4 r1-20, r3-20, r5-20, r7-20
6 15 60 14 (v-s) 0 2 r3-20, r5-20
OH2B-T 1 26 400 0 38 11 middlec-100, endc-30
2 15 72 0 7 6 end-20
3 2.5 54 0 5 6 end-10
4 10 42 0 4 6 end-10
OH2B 1 26 200 24 24 2 upperd-100, lowerd-100
2 20 120 5 24 1 upper-25
3 8 46 0 11 1 upper-10
4 10 17 0 4 1 upper-10
a
v-s indicates variable speed fans which were not running at full speed, and the speed was calculated based on the Q.
b
r1, …, r7 indicates the opening of the inlet baffles located above the cages at row 1, …, 7.
c
Middle/end denotes the opening of inlet baffles located at the middle/end of the house.
d
Upper/lower denotes the opening of upper board/lower board of inlet baffles.
72 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7

Fig. 1 e A general method of zone splitting of cages in one-quarter of a manure-belt layer house.

using Eq. (13) assuming that it was proportionally influenced

Table 3 e Zone splitting of cages in the IN2B house. by ambient air temperature without considering a change in
Tier 1, 2 3, 4, 5 6, 7 8, 9 10 ventilation rate. Equation (13) was mostly used in the winter
Row 1 A B C D E case for those cages located far away from inlets or exhaust
Rows 2, 3 F G H I J fans. Because winter ventilation rates were consistently low
Row 4 K L M N O when ambient air temperature was low (60 m3 s1 at 15 C
and 89 m3 s1 at 5 C in the OH2B houses), a minor increase in
ventilation rate was insufficient to decrease air temperatures
Table 4 e Zone splitting of cages in the OH2B house. in the stagnant cages, where convective heat exchange be-
comes very small.
Tier 1 2, 3 4, 5 6, 7 8



Row 1 A-1 B-1 C-1 D-1 E-1
Ti;a  To;a  Ti;b  To;b
A-2 B-2 C-2 D-2 E-2 Ti;v > 0:2 ¼ To þ Ti;a  To;a   ðQ  Qa Þ
ðQb  Qa Þ
A-3 B-3 C-3 D-3 E-3
(12)
Rows 2, 3 F-1 G-1 H-1 I-1 J-1
F-2 G-2 H-2 I-2 J-2

F-3 G-3 H-3 I-3 J-3 Ti;a  Ti;b

Ti;v0:2 ¼ Ti;a þ  ðTo  To;a Þ (13)
Row 4 K-1 L-1 M-1 N-1 O-1 ðTo;a  To;b Þ
K-2 L-2 M-2 N-2 O-2
K-3 L-3 M-3 N-3 O-3 where Ti;v > 0:2 is estimated cage temperature in zone i when air
velocity is larger than 0.2 m s1,  C; Ti;v0:2 is estimated cage
The letter in zone name indicates the zone ID defined in Table 3 and
temperature in zone i when air velocity is equal to or smaller
Fig. 1, and the number in zone name indicates the part ID defined in
Fig. 1. than 0.2 m s1,  C; To is given ambient temperature,  C; Ti;a and
Ti;b are cage temperatures in zone i in cases a and b, respec-
tively,  C; To;a and To;b are the ambient temperatures used in
2.4.3. Interpolation of air temperatures and velocities in cages
cases a and b, respectively, with To;a < To < To;b ,  C; Q is house
Cage air temperatures and velocities under the simulation
ventilation rate, m3 s1; and Qa and Qb are ventilation rates
conditions used in the selected cases (Table 3) were directly
used in cases a and b, respectively, m3 s1.
extracted from CFD simulations. When the inputs of ambient
Air velocities in cages at any ventilation rate were calcu-
air temperature and house ventilation rate were different
lated using Eq. (14) based on the assumption that air velocity
from the selected simulation conditions, cage temperatures
inside the cages is proportional to house ventilation rate.
and air velocities were estimated using linear interpolations

between results of simulations at conditions closest to them. vi;b  vi;a

Estimations of cage temperatures, given any ambient air vi ¼ vi;a þ  ðQ  Qa Þ (14)
ðQb  Qa Þ
temperature and house ventilation rate, were carried out
where vi is air velocity in cages in zone i to be estimated based
using Eqs. (12) and (13). When the cages were well ventilated
on house ventilation rate Q, m s1; vi;a and vi;b are cage veloc-
(air velocities > 0.2 m s1) the cage temperature was estimated
ities in zone i in cases a and b, respectively, m s1; Q is house
using Eq. (12) based on the assumption that the differences
ventilation rate, m3 s1; Qa and Qb are ventilation rates used in
between cage and ambient air temperatures were propor-
cases a and b, respectively, with Qa < Q < Qb , m3 s1.
tional to ventilation rate due to convective heat exchange.
Because the mechanistic model for estimating NH3 emis-
When air stagnation occurred inside cages (air
sion from layer manure was developed based on air
velocities < 0.2 m s1), the cage temperature was estimated
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7
temperatures ranging from 20.0 to 33.5  C (Tong et al., 2020),
an adjustment of the estimated temperatures in cages was
performed such that cage temperatures less than 20  C were
set to 20 C, and those greater than 33.5  C were set to 33.5  C.
Similarly, corrections of air velocity in cages vi was carried out
by treating vi < 0.25 m s1 as 0.25 m s1 and treating vi >
1.17 m s1 as 1.17 m s1 to avoid extrapolation of the mech-
anistic model (Tong et al., 2020).
2.5. Manure sampling and characterisation
Manure pH and MC were obtained based on characterisation
of manure samples taken in the IN2B and OH2B houses. In
OH2B houses, manure was sampled randomly from multiple
locations on each of five belts located at different rows and
tiers to generate the final manure sample. The manure sam-
ples were stored in a sealed bag and placed in a cooler during
transportation. They were then delivered to a quality certified
laboratory in a timely manner for characterisation of pH and
MC to avoid changes in manure properties. Five repeated
measurements of manure pH and MC were taken for each
batch of manure sample. In IN2B houses, nine manure sam-
ples were taken at randomly selected cage locations during
each sampling event in each house. Each of the nine manure
samples was characterised for pH and MC. More details about
manure sampling and characterisation are provided by Wang
et al. (2014) and Heber (2010) for the OH2B and IN2B layer
houses, respectively.
2.6. Estimation of NH3 emission surface areas
The emission area of NH3 was estimated based on manure
production rate and removal frequency. According to field
observations during the monitoring study, manure produced
by laying hens in one day covered approximately 1/3 of the
total surface area of the belts. Emission area was therefore
calculated as a function of manure production rate, 1/3 of total
area per day, and the number of days since the most recent
manure removal.
When manure was fully removed twice a week from the
manure collection belts (i.e., OH2B houses), manure coverage
on belts was calculated using Eq. (15). If manure on 1/3 of belts
was removed every day (i.e., IN2B houses), the average
manure coverage was 2/3 of the belts for all days of the week.
Fig. 2 e Comparison between measured exhaust temperatures ( ) and estimated cage temperatures ( ) in row 1 and tiers
1e3 in house B-A at IN2B site based on daily means, and the absolute difference between them ( ).
73
 
1 d1
b ¼ min þ ;1 (15)
6 3
where b is the proportion of manure coverage on the belts; d is
the number of days after the most recent manure removal,
where d ¼ 1 denotes the first day after manure removal; min
{a,b} equals the smaller value between a and b.
2.7. Integration of the sub-models to form the farm-scale
NH3 emission model
The total NH3 emission was estimated with a resolution of one
hour (Eqs. (16)e(19)) by summing NH3 emission rates from all
zones of cages as defined in Fig. 2. The ambient temperature
and house ventilation rate were known in a particular hour,
and were used to estimate air temperature and velocity in
each zone through CFD simulation and linear interpolation
(sections 3.1-3.3). The manure pH and MC were predicted
based on the day and month corresponding to this particular
hour (sections 3.4-3.5). The fraction of manure coverage on the
belts was estimated based on the manure removal schedule
(section 2.6). Finally, the daily average NH3 emission rate was
obtained by averaging the hourly NH3 emission rates within
each day only if more than 75% of the hourly average NH3
emission rates were available on that day.
 1    
10pHm 6943 100  MC
EFi ¼ 1 þ   Kh  1000 
Kdm 1  MC=100 MC
 KGi
(16)
KGi ¼  27:9 þ 2:08Ti  9:40vi þ 0:638Ti vi  0:0373T2i (17)
where EFi is the NH3 emission flux in the ith zone, mg m2 h1;
pHm is manure pH based on monthly sampling; MC is the
manure moisture content, which was assumed to be constant
for each site, %; Kdm is the dissociation constant of layer
manure calculated based on pHm and MC (Eqs. (2)e(4)); Kd0 is
the dissociation constant of water-NH3 solution which was
calculated from the hourly average cage temperatures using
Eq. (4); Kh is Henry’s Law constant, which was calculated from
the hourly average cage temperatures using Eq. (5); KGi is the
convective mass transfer coefficient calculated as a function
of air temperature and velocity in the ith zone; Ti is the
74 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7

temperature in the ith zone, ºC; and vi is average air velocity in addition, the paired t-test was performed in JMP 11.0 Statis-
the ith zone, m s1. tical Analysis Software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) to
compare the measurements and estimations of cage tem-
0
ERi ¼ 2:4  105 $EFi ,As $b (18) peratures. The Nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was
conducted in JMP to compare measured and estimated NH3
!,
X
N
X
N emissions rates. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all
0
ER ¼ ni $ ER0i ni (19)
statistical tests. The data at moulting and introduction of new
n¼1 n¼1
flocks were removed for model validation.
where ER0i is the NH3 emission rate of the whole house

assuming all cages have conditions equal to those in the ith 2 Co  Cp

FB ¼
(20)
zone, kg d1; As is total surface area of manure belts in the Co þ Cp
entire house, m2; b is the coefficient accounting for coverage of
manure on the belts (Eq. (15)). ER0 is the hourly NH3 emission   
Co
MG ¼ exp ln (21)
rate for the whole house, kg d1; N is the total number of Cp
zones; and ni is the weighting coefficient accounting for
number of cages included in ith zone.
2
Co  Cp
NMSE ¼ (22)
Co Cp
2.8. Model validation
  2 
2.8.1. Measurement for validation Co
VG ¼ exp ln (23)
The performance of CFD simulations was evaluated by Cp
comparing estimated cage temperatures in the OH2B and IN2B

layer houses with field measurements during the long-term FAC2 ¼ fraction of data that has 0:5 < Cp Co < 2:0 (24)
monitoring study. This validation not only tested the perfor-
where Co is measured values, and Cp is the predicted or
mance of the CFD models, but also evaluated the validity of
modelled values.
the linear interpolation methods discussed in section 2.4.3.
In the IN2B layer houses, direct measurements of cage
2.8.3. Uncertainty analysis
temperatures were unavailable. Instead, the average temper-
The uncertainty of the farm-scale model relative to the
atures of air in front of the first-floor exhaust fans located at
laboratory-scale mechanistic model (Tong et al., 2020) was
sidewalls were measured (Ni et al., 2017). Validation of cage
analysed with Eq. (25) using the uncertainty attributed by
temperatures was carried out by comparing the measure-
estimation of each input factor weighted by their relative
ments of exhaust air temperature with the estimated cages
sensitivity to NH3 emission rate (JCGM, 2008, p. 134).
temperatures at row 1 and tiers 13.
In the OH2B layer houses, direct measurements of cage qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
uc ðNH3 ERÞ ¼ ½cT uðTÞ2 þ ½cv uðvÞ2 þ cpH uðpHÞ þ ½cMC uðMCÞ2
temperatures were available at three locations in house 1 and
one location in house 2. In house 1, two sensors were located (25)
in the 4th row and 6th tier at the centre of the house (denoted where uc ðNH3 ERÞ is the combined uncertainty in estimating
as “UCC”) and near the end walls (denoted as “UCE”), respec- NH3 emission rate, %; cT is the sensitivity coefficient of air
tively. The other sensor was installed in the 4th row and 2nd temperature, %; uðTÞ is the standard deviation of air temper-
tier near the end walls (denoted as “LCE”). In house 2, only ature, ºC; cv is the sensitivity coefficient of air velocity, %; uðvÞ
measurement data from the UCE sensor was available. For is the standard deviation of air velocity, m s1; cpH is the
validation, the estimated cage temperatures in zones N-2, N-1, sensitivity coefficient of manure pH, %; uðpHÞ is the standard
and L-2 were compared with readings from the UCE, UCC, and deviation of manure pH; cMC is the sensitivity coefficient of
LCE sensors, respectively. manure moisture content, %; and uðMCÞ is the standard de-
Validation of NH3 emission was performed on hourly basis viation of manure moisture content.
and daily bases by comparing estimations with hourly and
daily averages of NH3 emission rates measured at the OH2B
and IN2B layer houses.
3. Results and discussion
2.8.2. Model validation criteria
3.1. Estimation of cage temperatures using CFD
The agreement between the measurements and estimations
of cage temperatures and NH3 emissions was assessed using
3.1.1. Cross-ventilated house (IN2B)
five statistics (Eqs. (20)e(24)), including fractional bias (FB),
In general, the cage temperatures decreased as ambient air
geometric mean bias (MG), normalised mean square error
temperature decreases, except for the winter cases (cases 5
(NMSE), geometric variance (VG), and fraction of two (FAC2)
and 6) where the temperatures in tiers 2  5 at rows 3  4 tend
(Chang & Hanna, 2004; Hadjab & Medjahed, 2012; Theobald,
to be higher than those in hot and mild weather conditions
Sanz-Cobena, Vallejo, & Sutton, 2015). The model is consid-
(Table A1, Fig. A1). This can be explained by stagnation of air in
ered adequate if more than half of the parameters met the
these cages. The air stagnation occurred because the cages
following criteria: jFBj < 0:3, 0:7 < MG < 1:3, NMSE < 0:25, VG < 4,
were located far from the inlet baffles and exhaust fans.
and FAC2 > 0:5 (ASTM, 2002, p. 4; Hanna & Chang, 2011). In
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7
Therefore the heat generated from layers could not be effi-
ciently dissipated by the limited amount of air passing
through them because of low ventilation rate in winter. In all
seasons, the cage temperatures were the lowest in tiers 1 and
8 among all tiers because they were located the closest to the
ceiling and floor where air velocity was high because of short-
circuiting of airflow.
It was also observed that variations in cage temperatures
were quite small in summer (cases 1 and 2), and they
increased as ambient air temperature decreased with the
largest standard deviation in winter (cases 5 and 6). This
pattern was expected because a maximum ventilation rate
was used in hot summers and this allowed for an adequate
amount of air passing through all the cages. The cross venti-
lation also resulted in relatively uniform airflow with similar
air velocities in cages, and thus the thermal environment in-
side cages did not have large fluctuations. In winter, the
ventilation rate was only 10  14% of the maximum ventila-
tion. The airflow became less uniform because of the limited
number of operating exhaust fans and smaller openings of
partial inlets. This led to air stagnation in the areas far away
from the inlets or exhausts. As a result, cage temperatures had
larger fluctuations in winter compared with summer.
3.1.2. Tunnel-ventilated house (OH2B-T)
Cage temperatures were higher in summer compared with
winter (Table A2, Fig. A2). A small variation of cage tempera-
ture among tiers was observed in summer because all the
cages were well ventilated with maximum ventilation rate.
However, in winter, cage temperatures were significantly
different among tiers because of air stagnation in some tiers
due to limited ventilation.
It was also observed that cage temperatures near the end
walls (part 1) were systematically higher than near the air
inlets (part 3) in summer as was expected under tunnel
ventilation. The difference between parts 1 and 3 was not as
obvious in winter because plug flow could not be formed with
a lower ventilation rate and partially closed inlet baffles.
Instead of creating a large lengthwise gradient of air temper-
ature, vortex airflows (Tong et al., 2019a) were formed
resulting in smaller variations of air temperatures along the
building length in winter.
3.1.3. Retrofitted house (OH2B)
Variations in cage temperatures among tiers were relatively
stable in summer, whereas in winter, the variations were
quite high in tiers 2 and 3 on the first floor and in tier 7 on the
second floor of the house (Table A3, Fig. A3). The low air
temperatures were observed in tiers 4 and 5 located near the
floor. This pattern resulted from the house ventilation rates
and the housing structure. In summer, the maximum venti-
lation rate was applied with exhaust fans operating at both
first and second floors and provided efficient ventilation to the
cages. In contrast, only a few exhaust fans operated on the
second floor in winter with low-velocity air in cages in tiers 2,
3, and 7, leading to higher cage temperatures. Low air tem-
peratures in tiers 4 and 5 occurred because they were located
near the floor where high-speed cold air jets passed through a
larger gap. Another reason was that cold air tends to drop
because of its larger density.
75
Cage temperatures also significantly differed along the
building length, especially in winter (Fig. A3). In winter, the
cage temperatures at the first row were higher near the end
walls (part 1) compared with those near the air inlets (part 3).
This was because only the fans on the second floor operated in
winter, and allowed the formation of tunnel ventilation on the
upper level. While no fan operated on the first floor, some cool
air dropped from the second floor to the first floor and enabled
a similar air temperature gradient on the first floor. In sum-
mer, however, ventilation was a mixture of tunnel and cross
ventilation, and added complexity to the spatial variation in
air temperatures.
3.2. Validation of CFD simulations and interpolation of
cage temperatures
3.2.1. IN2B houses
The estimations of cage temperatures were capable of indi-
cating seasonal variations in the IN2B houses, but not during
special events, such as moulting and a small period following
introduction of new flocks, during which the measured exhaust
air temperatures were much lower than the estimated tem-
peratures (Fig. 2). Furthermore, the estimated cage tempera-
tures were slightly higher than the measured exhaust air
temperatures for most of the periods. This result was expected
because cage temperatures were normally 1 to 3  C higher than
those in the neighbouring aisle (Green, Wesley, Trampel, & Xin,
2009). A similar pattern was also observed in the CFD simula-
tion results (Tong et al., 2019a; 2019b). The data for house B-B
validation is not shown for brevity, but was included for sta-
tistical evaluation of model performance.
Based on the paired t-test, the estimated cage tempera-
tures were significantly higher (p < 0.01) than the measured
exhaust air temperatures. Despite that, they were highly
correlated (r ¼ 0.85). After adjusting the estimations by the
systematic difference, the adjusted estimations were not
significantly different (p ¼ 0.94) than the measurement. It was
concluded that CFD simulations and linear interpolations
(Eqs. (12) and (13)) performed adequately in estimating cage
temperatures for normal egg production excluding periods of
moulting and flock replacement.
3.2.2. OH2B houses
In the OH2B layer houses, the estimated cage temperatures
agreed well with the measurements (Fig. 3). The agreement
between the measurements and estimations were better in
warm seasons than in cold seasons. This was likely due to
relatively stable airflow in summer when most exhaust fans
operated, whereas fan staging changed often in cold seasons,
causing large fluctuations in thermal conditions. In addition,
cage temperatures were more sensitive to their locations in
winter because only a small amount of cold air could pass
through some cages. The pathways of cold air jets fluctuated
with time due to frequently changed fan operation staging,
and therefore the estimation had larger uncertainties in cold
seasons. The estimations were lower than the measurements
at the later moulting period that occurred in house 2 at OH2B
(Fig. 3). This was different from the case in the IN2B houses
where the model overestimated cage temperatures during
moulting (Fig. 2).
76 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7
Fig. 3 e The measured ( ) and the estimated ( ) temperatures at UCE in house 2 at OH2B site, and the absolute difference
between them ( ).
Good agreement was observed between measurements
and estimations of cage temperatures in both IN2B and
OH2B houses (Table 5). All of the statistical criteria were
met, indicating that the CFD simulations and linear inter-
polation had adequate performance in estimating cage
temperatures.
3.3. Estimation of air velocity in cages using CFD
3.3.1. Cross-ventilated house (IN2B)
Air velocities in cages were observed to increase as ambient
temperature increased (Table B1, Fig. B1). Among all the
tiers, the cages at the top tier had the highest air velocity
because they were the closest to the inlets with no blocking
effect from housing structures. It was also observed that
cage air velocities were the highest in row 1 and the lowest
in row 4. This was because row 1 was directly exposed to
sidewall exhaust fans, whereas row 4 was located in the
middle of the house and was blocked by in-between rows of
cages.
3.3.2. Tunnel-ventilated house (OH2B-T)
The variations of air velocity in cages among different tiers
and rows were relatively small due to tunnel ventilation
(Table B2, Fig. B2). On the other hand, air velocities in cages
located near the exhaust fans on the end walls (part 1) were
systematically higher than those located near the air inlets
(part 3). This agreed with the observation that a large gradient
of air velocity was formed along the length of the building
because of the nature of tunnel ventilation.
Table 5 e Model performance in estimating cage
temperatures.
Criteria IN2B
NMSE (< 0.25) 0.01
|FB| (< 0.3) 0.03
MG (0.7e1.3) 0.97
VG (< 4) 0.94
FAC2 (> 0.5) 1.00
p-value of paired t test (> 0.05) 0.94
Note: the criteria in parenthesis indicate an adequate model
performance.
3.3.3. Retrofitted house (OH2B)
Air velocities in cages were the highest in summer and lowest
in winter in general (Table B3, Fig. B3). In winter, the highest
air velocities were observed at tier 4 because the high-speed
air jets mainly flowed through the gap between the floor and
the 4th tier. The peak of air velocities in winter decreased from
the 1st row to the 4th row because air jets had the highest
velocity near the side walls and this reduced as the air jets
flowed towards the centre of the house. In contrast, the
highest air velocities in summer were observed in tiers 5e7 of
the 4th row. This was because cages in row 4 were the closest
to the inlet baffles, and thus high-speed incoming air first
flowed into the tiers located on the upper level. Overall, spatial
variations of cage air velocities in the retrofitted houses were
more complex than those in the cross-ventilated and tunnel-
ventilated houses.
3.4. Manure pH
Obvious temporal variations of manure pH were observed for
both of the IN2B and the OH2B houses. The change of manure
pH with time were not consistent between the two sites
(Fig. 4).
Since no data on temporal layer manure pH changes was
found in the literature, the manure pH in this study was
estimated based on measured data. In particular, the rela-
tionship of manure pH with month was fitted separately for
each site using a third order polynomial regression to explain
the temporal variation in layer manure pH. The fitted equa-
tions for estimating manure pH in the IN2B houses and the
OH2B houses explained 92.4% and 98.0% of the total variations
in manure pH. Table 6 shows the estimated manure pH in
different months for the IN2B and OH2B sites based on fitted
equations. Since manure pH is the most sensitive factor
affecting NH3 emission (Tong et al., 2020), it is recommended
OH2B
that producers sample manure from belts at least monthly for
0.04
characterising the pH used to estimate NH3 emission.
0.10
1.10
1.22
3.5. Manure moisture content
1.00
0.52 Manure MC in the IN2B houses ranged from 62.4 to 76.1%,
which were generally higher than those in the OH2B houses
ranging from 49.0 to 68.6% (Fig. 5). The difference in manure
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7 77

Fig. 4 e Manure pH in different months for IN2B and OH2B Fig. 5 e Manure MC in different months for IN2B and OH2B
layer houses and the fitted polynomial regression. The layer houses. The error bars indicate standard deviations
error bars indicate standard deviations from multiple from multiple manure pH measurements from each
manure pH measurements from each sampling event. sampling event.

for houses B-A and B-B, respectively. The estimated NH3

Table 6 e Manure pH in different months in OH2B and emission factors for the houses B-A and B-B were 78.5 ± 37.6
IN2B layer houses. and 80.1 ± 40.5 kg d1 (0.314 ± 0.147 and 0.323 ± 0.160 g d1
Month OH2B IN2B hen1), respectively. The relative errors based on emission per
Jan 8.50 8.21 day and emission per day per hen were 9.8% and 9.6% for
Feb 8.50 8.13 house B-A, and 13.8% and 13.9% for house B-B.
Mar 7.60 7.85 The general trend in NH3 emissions from the IN2B houses
Apr 7.01 7.33 was mostly captured by the model except for the high
May 7.35 7.37 emission peaks measured in December of 2008 with both
Jun 7.39 7.19
hourly and daily resolutions (Fig. 6). The underestimation of
Jul 7.23 7.18
Aug 7.01 7.31 NH3 emission was likely due to the uncertainty of the esti-
Sep 6.89 7.51 mated manure pH values, which were the most sensitive
Oct 7.01 7.75 input to the model (Tong et al., 2020). In particular, the
Nov 7.60 7.98 manure pH in December was estimated based on the fitted
Dec 8.50 8.15 polynomial equations. Because no measurement of manure
pH was available in December, the uncertainty of the
manure pH estimation in December could not be precisely
MC between the two sites might be due to different manure evaluated.
management and sampling methods. For example, the It was also noticed that the model significantly over-
manure was sampled directly from belts at the IN2B site, but estimated NH3 emissions during moulting and shortly after
was sampled during removal at the OH2B site. Because no new flock was fully introduced to the house (Fig. 6). During
obvious seasonal pattern was observed, the averaged manure moulting, layers are provided with limited feed, and thus
MC was used as input for NH3 emission estimation. The manure production significantly decreases. This usually
average manure MC in the IN2B houses was 72.1%, which was leads to a reduction in NH3 emissions (Li et al., 2013; Ni et al.,
greater than the highest MC (67.2%) included in the mecha- 2017). The decrease in NH3 emissions right after the
nistic model. To avoid extrapolation of the mechanistic model replacement of new flock could be explained by the
(Tong et al., 2020), the input for manure MC was 67.2% for the decreased production of manure due to lower total live mass
IN2B site and was 58.3% for the OH2B site. of the flock. None of these changes during special events was
accounted for in the model, and therefore the NH3 emissions
3.6. Validation of NH3 emission estimation were overestimated during these periods. Based on the
agreement between measurements and estimations of NH3
3.6.1. IN2B houses emissions (Table 7), the daily averages of NH3 emissions were
The measured NH3 emission factors were 71.5 ± 36.8 and more accurately estimated by the model than the hourly
70.4 ± 41.8 kg d1 (0.286 ± 0.145 and 0.284 ± 0.166 g d1 hen1) averages.
78 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7

Fig. 6 e The measured ( ) and the estimated ( ) NH3 emissions from house B-B at IN2B site based on (a) hourly averages and
(b) daily averages, and the absolute difference ( ) between daily measurements and estimations.

warmer seasons was mainly attributed to the higher manure

Table 7 e Model performance in estimating of NH3
pH in winter observed at OH2B houses. Because pH was the
emission rates.
most sensitive input to NH3 emission models with sensitivity
Criteria IN2B OH2B
increasing as pH increases (Liang, Westerman, & Arogo, 2002;
Hourly Daily Hourly Daily Liu et al., 2009; Tong et al., 2020), the uncertainty of manure pH
NMSE (< 0.25) 0.67 0.49 1.42 0.93 estimations in winter could lead to large errors in NH3 emis-
|FB| (< 0.3) 0.26 0.22 0.28 0.12 sion estimations. The accuracy of the model in winter could be
MG (0.7e1.3) 1.12 1.06 0.72 0.85 further improved in a future study by developing a model for
VG (< 4) 1.25 1.13 0.51 0.71 estimating the dynamic changes in manure pH with resolu-
FAC2 ( >0.5) 0.68 0.79 0.44 0.58
tion finer than a month.
p-value of Wilcoxon test (> 0.05) 0.15 0.61 0.02 0.10
Overestimations of NH3 emissions were also observed in
Note: the criteria in parenthesis indicate an adequate model
early May in house 1. Measurements in this period seemed
performance.
problematic as NH3 emissions were consistently low. This
unexpected measurements data might either be affected by a
malfunction of monitoring systems during April 17eMay 10,
2007 or possible unrecorded preparation activities for the
3.6.2. OH2B houses
introduction of new flocks occurring in the following month.
The measured NH3 emission factors were 11.4 ± 9.6 and
15.3 ± 9.79 kg d1 (0.074 ± 0.061 and 0.099 ± 0.066 g d1 hen1)
3.6.3. Model evaluation
for houses 1 and 2, respectively. The estimated NH3 emission
Based on statistical parameters (Table 7), the NMSE were
factors for the houses 1 and 2 were 13.7 ± 10.7 and
relatively large for both the IN2B and OH2B sites regardless of
17.3 ± 12.4 kg d1 (0.091 ± 0.074 and 0.111 ± 0.080 g d1 hen1),
the estimation resolution, whereas all of the other criteria
respectively. The relative errors based on emission per day
with respect to FB, MG, VG were met. The FAC2 criterion was
and emission per day per hen were 20.6% and 23.6% for house
met in all cases except for the hourly estimations at OH2B
1, and 13.1% and 12.5% for house 2, respectively.
houses. Due to a heavily right-skewed distribution of NH3
The model was able to capture the general seasonal vari-
emissions, the criteria based on MG, VG, and FAC2 were sug-
ations in NH3 emissions from the OH2B houses with both
gested to be the primary indicators of model performance
hourly and daily resolutions (Fig. 7). The largest differences
because NMSE can be highly influenced by infrequent occur-
between the measurements and estimations of NH3 emissions
rence of high NH3 emissions (Patryl & Galeriu, 2011). The high
were found in winter. Although the range of estimations
NMSE values of the model were mainly caused by the
closely overlapped with the range of measurements, the
discrepancy in winter as shown in Table 8. This also suggested
agreement between the measurements and estimations for
that NMSE value was highly influenced by high NH3 emissions
individual hours or days was not as good as in warm seasons.
and non-normality of the distribution. The model
The higher level of NH3 emissions in winter compared with
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7 79

Fig. 7 e The measured ( ) and the estimated ( ) NH3 emissions from house 1 at OH2B site based on (a) hourly averages and
(b) daily averages, and the absolute difference ( ) between daily measurements and estimations.

Table 8 e NMSE of the model in different seasons. Table 9 e Uncertainty of farm-scale model for IN2B and
OH2B houses.
Seasons IN2B OH2B
IN2B OH2B
Hourly Daily Hourly Daily
Average Change in Average Change in
Summer 0.24 0.18 0.19 0.10
Standard ERa (%) Standard ERa (%)
Spring/Autumn 0.25 0.20 0.35 0.24
Deviation Deviation
Winter 0.80 0.55 1.64 1.07
pH 0.10 11.7 0.08 9.38
Note: the criteria in parenthesis indicate an adequate model
Moisture Content 2.8% 0.93 4.0% 1.32
performance.
Temperature 2.1  C 27.2 1.5  C 19.4
Air Velocity 0.14 m s1 11.6 0.18 m s1 14.9
Uncertainty 31.8% 26.2%
performance did not satisfy hourly estimations because the a
The change in ER corresponds to the change in each input factor
criteria were nearly met for FB or MG, especially for OH2B by its average standard deviation while other input factors are
houses. In contrast, the model was considered adequate for remained at their mean values.
daily estimations because more than half of the criteria were
met for both sites (Hanna & Chang, 2011). The p-values larger
than 0.05 for Wilcoxon test further showed the model ade-
quacy in daily NH3 emission estimations. emission was introduced when using farm-scale factors to es-
Based on the Wilcoxon signed rank test, both the hourly timate the inputs of the mechanistic model (Tong et al., 2020).
and daily estimations of NH3 emission in the IN2B houses
agreed well with measurement. For the OH2B houses, how- 3.6.5. Model application
ever, significant differences were observed between the The model can be used by egg producers and regulatory
hourly estimations and hourly measurements (p ¼ 0.02). The agencies to estimate average NH3 emission from a typical
model was therefore capable of estimating daily averages of manure-belt layer house on any given day. Egg producers can
NH3 emission, but not hourly averages of NH3 emission. The readily use the model to estimate the NH3 emission from their
daily resolution seemed reasonable for estimation because farms as long as they have access to ambient air temperature
the process of NH3 emission from manure involved various and house ventilation rate data in addition to the house and
chemical, biological, and physical processes which were less egg production information. Ambient air temperature can be
likely to yield an acute response on an hourly basis. either monitored onsite or obtained from a nearby weather
station. House ventilation rate is determined based on airflow
3.6.4. Model uncertainty rate of representative fans and the operational status of all the
The uncertainty (Table 9) of the farm-scale model relative to the fans during production. Producers can determine the house
lab-scale mechanistic model (Tong et al., 2020) was 31.8% for ventilation rate using the manufacture fan curve and an
the IN2B houses and 26.2% for the OH2B houses using Eq. (25). estimated degradation factor based on the conditions of fans
This indicated that an additional 26.2  31.8% of error in NH3 (Table 1). In addition, producers can calculate the ventilation
80 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7

rate based on energy balance of the ventilation process using
Eqs. (10) and (11).
Regarding manure properties, producers are encouraged to
collect manure samples at their own farms every month and
send them to a certified lab to test manure pH, moisture
content, and TAN to obtain a more precise NH3 emission es-
timate. Alternatively, producers could use the averaged values
provided in this study, as they are reasonable assumptions for
the manures in typical manure-belt layer houses.
The model can also be used by regulatory agencies to
establish science-based reporting rules. The generalisation of
the model to different types of layer houses, such as cage-free
and enriched colony systems, is possible once CFD models
become available for such layer houses to estimate the air
temperature and velocity near manure surfaces.
further improved in the future through better estimations of
layer manure pH.
Overall, the model exhibited adequate performance in
estimating daily average NH3 emissions in representative
manure-belt layer houses during ordinary production. Over-
estimation of NH3 emissions was observed during special
events such as moulting and introduction of new flocks.
The model can be used as a tool for producers to estimate
effects of various management practices or mitigation stra-
tegies on NH3 emissions from manure-belt layer houses in the
USA for reduced environmental and health impacts.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None declared.

4. Conclusion
Acknowledgement
The developed farm-scale NH3 emission estimation model
can be used for estimating NH3 emission from typical manure-
This study was supported by the USDA-NIFA Grant 2018-
belt layer houses with tunnel, cross-flow, and combined
67019-27803. The authors are thankful for the managers and
ventilation systems. The input factors of the farm-scale NH3
staff of the collaborating poultry farm for their support and
emission model that are accessible to producers and regula-
assistance to the project. The IN2B data were from the Na-
tory agencies consist of hen inventory, ambient temperature,
tional Air Emission Monitoring Study that received adminis-
house ventilation mode and rate, manure production rate,
trative and financial support from the Agricultural Air
and manure removal schedule.
Research Council and the American Egg Board, and collabo-
The farm-scale model had a 26  32% uncertainty relative
rations of the Indiana egg producer. The work of A. J. Heber
to the mechanistic model (Tong et al., 2020) in NH3 emission
and J.-Q. Ni was supported by the USDA-NIFA Hatch project
estimation based on the sensitivity of the multiple input fac-
1011562.
tors of the mechanistic model. Based on analyses of VG, MG,
FAC2, and p-value of Wilcoxon signed rank test, the model is Appendix A. CFD simulation results on cage
adequate for predicting daily NH3 emissions (p ¼ 0.10e0.61), temperatures
but not adequate for accurately predicting hourly NH3 emis-
sions (p ¼ 0.02e0.15). The performance of the model could be

Table A1 e Average cage temperatures ( C) ± standard deviations in each zone in a cross-ventilated layer house (IN2B).
Zone Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
A 31.6 ± 0.3 31.8 ± 0.4 29.6 ± 0.8 28.5 ± 1.6 24.5 ± 2.8 24.2 ± 2.8
B 31.5 ± 0.4 31.8 ± 0.6 29.4 ± 1.0 29.3 ± 2.4 27.3 ± 5.3 26.0 ± 5.0
C 32.2 ± 0.8 32.1 ± 0.5 29.8 ± 1.1 27.7 ± 3.8 26.8 ± 4.4 26.5 ± 4.5
D 32.9 ± 0.6 33.2 ± 0.9 31.4 ± 2.1 30.3 ± 2.4 29.2 ± 4.8 29.5 ± 4.5
E 30.5 ± 0.1 30.5 ± 0.1 27.0 ± 0.3 22.8 ± 1.1 13.8 ± 1.8 13.2 ± 2.1
F 32.0 ± 0.7 32.1 ± 0.7 29.9 ± 1.5 28.5 ± 1.9 24.2 ± 2.9 23.8 ± 2.9
G 32.0 ± 0.9 32.1 ± 1.2 30.0 ± 2.2 28.5 ± 3.5 29.4 ± 5.6 28.5 ± 5.6
H 32.2 ± 0.9 32.6 ± 1.3 31.0 ± 3.0 28.7 ± 3.7 31.9 ± 7.1 32.2 ± 6.5
I 32.7 ± 1.2 33.1 ± 1.0 31.7 ± 3.0 31.2 ± 3.6 26.2 ± 12.9 25.1 ± 11.4
J 30.5 ± 0.2 30.5 ± 0.2 27.0 ± 0.5 22.5 ± 1.5 18.8 ± 7.0 17.3 ± 7.3
K 31.7 ± 0.3 32.1 ± 0.5 30.2 ± 1.1 21.5 ± 2.8 26.5 ± 2.8 25.5 ± 2.8
L 32.0 ± 0.6 32.4 ± 0.9 30.9 ± 2.9 30.3 ± 3.1 32.5 ± 3.5 33.2 ± 3.4
M 33.8 ± 1.1 33.9 ± 1.1 33.5 ± 2.8 31.8 ± 4.0 32.5 ± 6.6 33.2 ± 5.5
N 33.6 ± 1.0 34.0 ± 0.9 33.8 ± 2.9 30.9 ± 4.6 24.8 ± 9.3 24.2 ± 9.9
O 30.4 ± 0.1 30.4 ± 0.1 26.8 ± 0.3 22.5 ± 1.3 17.6 ± 2.2 16.4 ± 2.9
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7 81

Table A2 e Average cage temperatures ± standard

deviations ( C) in each zone in a tunnel-ventilated OH2B-
T layer house.
Zone Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
A-1 29.6 ± 1.3 29.5 ± 1.6 25.0 ± 1.2 21.2 ± 1.0
B-1 31.2 ± 1.2 31.2 ± 1.5 26.0 ± 1.0 21.8 ± 1.2
C-1 32.3 ± 1.4 33.1 ± 1.8 27.2 ± 0.4 23.0 ± 0.8
D-1 32.9 ± 1.1 29.9 ± 1.1 26.9 ± 0.8 22.7 ± 0.5
E-1 30.2 ± 1.5 30.2 ± 1.4 22.7 ± 1.3 16.5 ± 2.5
F-1 29.9 ± 1.2 29.2 ± 1.3 23.9 ± 1.6 20.0 ± 1.2
G-1 32.9 ± 1.0 29.3 ± 1.1 24.1 ± 0.5 20.2 ± 0.9
H-1 32.5 ± 1.3 32.1 ± 1.2 27.1 ± 1.5 25.1 ± 1.4
I-1 32.8 ± 1.6 32.1 ± 1.8 27.6 ± 1.7 25.2 ± 1.8
J-1 30.4 ± 0.9 26.4 ± 2.2 22.5 ± 0.4 19.4 ± 1.5
K-1 33.2 ± 0.8 29.8 ± 1.7 22.7 ± 0.2 19.6 ± 1.9
L-1 34.2 ± 1.4 29.8 ± 1.6 24.6 ± 1.0 20.1 ± 1.6
M-1 34.8 ± 1.3 32.8 ± 2.1 27.5 ± 1.5 23.7 ± 1.0
N-1 33.9 ± 0.8 34.9 ± 1.4 29.4 ± 0.8 24.9 ± 1.1
O-1 26.3 ± 0.7 20.4 ± 1.5 24.0 ± 0.9 20.0 ± 1.2

A-2 28.8 ± 1.2 29.6 ± 1.2 24.2 ± 0.7 20.2 ± 1.5

B-2 28.9 ± 1.1 31.4 ± 1.3 26.4 ± 1.0 22.1 ± 1.6
C-2 30.8 ± 1.5 32.3 ± 0.9 28.3 ± 0.6 24.8 ± 0.4
D-2 31.2 ± 1.4 30.0 ± 1.5 27.8 ± 0.9 24.0 ± 1.0
E-2 29.8 ± 0.8 30.2 ± 0.8 21.2 ± 0.8 17.9 ± 1.6
F-2 30.0 ± 0.7 29.6 ± 0.8 24.1 ± 1.1 20.5 ± 1.2
G-2 30.9 ± 1.3 29.5 ± 1.1 24.4 ± 1.6 20.6 ± 1.0
H-2 31.9 ± 0.9 31.6 ± 1.2 27.0 ± 1.8 23.7 ± 1.6
I-2 30.9 ± 1.2 31.1 ± 1.0 28.8 ± 1.1 25.8 ± 1.0
J-2 29.2 ± 1.4 26.4 ± 1.3 28.4 ± 0.4 25.0 ± 0.8
K-2 32.0 ± 0.7 28.9 ± 1.4 22.4 ± 1.6 18.4 ± 1.5
L-2 31.9 ± 1.1 29.4 ± 1.8 23.6 ± 0.8 20.0 ± 0.5
M-2 32.4 ± 0.9 32.4 ± 0.5 27.4 ± 0.9 24.0 ± 0.4
N-2 32.6 ± 1.2 34.0 ± 0.9 32.0 ± 1.6 29.4 ± 1.0
O-2 26.3 ± 1.4 20.6 ± 1.2 29.6 ± 1.2 28.6 ± 1.4

A-3 28.4 ± 1.3 28.6 ± 0.5 23.5 ± 0.5 20.0 ± 0.7

B-3 29.1 ± 1.2 29.5 ± 1.4 25.0 ± 0.9 20.4 ± 0.6
C-3 28.8 ± 1.7 30.4 ± 0.9 25.0 ± 1.2 20.5 ± 1.8
D-3 29.5 ± 1.5 31.2 ± 1.0 24.9 ± 0.5 20.3 ± 1.5
E-3 28.8 ± 1.1 28.7 ± 0.8 23.3 ± 0.8 19.5 ± 1.2
F-3 28.3 ± 1.0 28.0 ± 1.6 23.8 ± 0.7 19.8 ± 2.2
G-3 27.9 ± 1.4 28.6 ± 1.4 25.1 ± 1.2 20.4 ± 1.0
H-3 28.6 ± 1.6 29.3 ± 0.7 26.5 ± 1.1 22.1 ± 1.1
I-3 28.8 ± 1.4 29.8 ± 1.4 25.6 ± 1.0 21.7 ± 0.8
J-3 28.4 ± 1.5 27.4 ± 1.0 23.8 ± 0.7 20.1 ± 1.5
K-3 28.9 ± 0.7 28.8 ± 1.1 23.3 ± 1.2 19.9 ± 1.4
L-3 28.3 ± 0.8 29.6 ± 0.5 25.5 ± 1.2 21.3 ± 1.0
Fig. A1 e Average cage temperatures with tier number at M-3 27.8 ± 1.0 30.0 ± 1.7 28.1 ± 0.4 24.8 ± 0.2
(a) row 1, (b) row 3, and (c) row 4 in different seasons in a N-3 27.8 ± 1.2 29.1 ± 1.2 27.4 ± 1.0 24.0 ± 0.5
cross-ventilated IN2B layer house. The error bars indicate O-3 27.4 ± 1.1 28.6 ± 0.7 27.0 ± 0.5 23.8 ± 0.8
standard deviations.
82 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7

Table A3 e Average cage temperatures ± standard

deviations ( C) in each zone in a retrofitted layer house
(OH2B).
Zone Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
A-1 34.5 ± 0.8 34.4 ± 1.4 31.4 ± 1.6 37.4 ± 2.1
B-1 32.2 ± 2.3 32.8 ± 2.7 37.7 ± 2.7 39.1 ± 2.8
C-1 30.3 ± 1.2 27.1 ± 2.2 22.3 ± 0.8 23.3 ± 0.6
D-1 30.6 ± 1.6 26.0 ± 1.3 29.8 ± 2.0 34.4 ± 1.7
E-1 30.9 ± 0.8 27.3 ± 1.1 26.5 ± 1.2 32.3 ± 1.8
F-1 32.2 ± 1.0 31.2 ± 2.8 34.9 ± 1.7 37.5 ± 1.5
G-1 32.4 ± 2.3 31.3 ± 4.3 37.4 ± 2.5 39.7 ± 0.6
H-1 30.4 ± 2.9 28.4 ± 3.7 22.0 ± 0.4 21.1 ± 0.9
I-1 30.2 ± 2.2 27.4 ± 4.5 28.4 ± 0.6 31.4 ± 0.7
J-1 32.4 ± 1.3 28.0 ± 2.6 26.3 ± 0.6 31.0 ± 0.9
K-1 31.6 ± 1.0 30.5 ± 1.3 35.2 ± 1.0 32.8 ± 2.0
L-1 31.7 ± 1.2 31.9 ± 3.6 37.1 ± 1.6 39.3 ± 1.0
M-1 31.4 ± 1.5 28.4 ± 2.2 22.6 ± 2.3 20.8 ± 1.6
N-1 34.4 ± 2.4 32.6 ± 2.8 31.2 ± 1.2 33.5 ± 1.1
O-1 33.9 ± 1.0 28.7 ± 2.3 27.9 ± 0.6 26.0 ± 0.4

A-2 34.6 ± 0.7 33.2 ± 1.5 28.6 ± 1.2 34.8 ± 0.4

B-2 32.9 ± 2.2 30.1 ± 2.7 35.7 ± 2.6 38.3 ± 2.5
C-2 29.6 ± 1.1 25.3 ± 1.9 21.9 ± 0.7 24.6 ± 0.5
D-2 32.6 ± 1.3 28.8 ± 1.6 27.6 ± 1.9 35.0 ± 1.6
E-2 32.0 ± 1.0 29.2 ± 1.4 23.8 ± 1.3 32.6 ± 1.3
F-2 32.3 ± 2.4 29.8 ± 2.1 32.1 ± 1.2 35.6 ± 1.3
G-2 32.3 ± 2.3 29.6 ± 3.1 35.2 ± 2.9 38.9 ± 1.1
H-2 31.1 ± 2.6 27.9 ± 3.8 22.3 ± 0.3 21.8 ± 0.8
I-2 30.9 ± 3.2 27.5 ± 4.6 27.9 ± 1.2 30.8 ± 1.0
J-2 32.0 ± 1.2 29.2 ± 1.9 26.5 ± 0.6 31.6 ± 0.6
K-2 30.6 ± 0.4 28.0 ± 0.6 32.3 ± 0.5 30.9 ± 0.6
L-2 31.6 ± 0.9 30.3 ± 2.1 34.7 ± 1.1 38.8 ± 0.7
M-2 30.3 ± 1.1 28.1 ± 1.9 23.2 ± 0.4 20.5 ± 0.9
N-2 34.7 ± 2.6 33.8 ± 2.5 31.2 ± 0.6 31.7 ± 0.3
O-2 31.6 ± 0.8 29.6 ± 1.0 27.8 ± 0.2 23.1 ± 0.3

A-3 32.0 ± 0.6 29.6 ± 1.3 27.5 ± 1.3 33.1 ± 1.2

B-3 33.3 ± 2.2 32.5 ± 2.9 32.4 ± 3.1 36.5 ± 3.3
C-3 28.4 ± 0.9 24.6 ± 1.5 21.8 ± 0.5 25.4 ± 0.4
D-3 33.4 ± 1.3 30.7 ± 2.1 26.1 ± 1.8 34.8 ± 1.5
E-3 32.0 ± 0.7 28.3 ± 1.6 22.6 ± 1.0 33.3 ± 0.7
F-3 31.1 ± 1.7 31.1 ± 2.7 30.7 ± 1.2 34.9 ± 1.2
G-3 30.7 ± 1.9 28.9 ± 2.8 34.0 ± 3.0 38.1 ± 1.3
H-3 30.6 ± 2.8 27.7 ± 3.1 22.4 ± 0.3 22.3 ± 0.8
I-3 31.6 ± 2.4 28.1 ± 3.7 26.7 ± 1.2 29.6 ± 0.9
J-3 31.1 ± 1.1 27.7 ± 2.3 26.7 ± 0.7 32.3 ± 0.6
K-3 30.4 ± 1.5 28.1 ± 1.0 30.1 ± 0.5 30.0 ± 0.3
L-3 34.9 ± 1.5 30.0 ± 2.6 32.9 ± 1.4 36.6 ± 0.6
M-3 30.1 ± 1.1 26.8 ± 2.0 23.7 ± 0.6 20.5 ± 0.7
N-3 32.7 ± 1.9 31.2 ± 2.6 30.4 ± 0.7 30.0 ± 0.2
Fig. A2 e Average cage temperature in different tiers at (a) O-3 29.5 ± 0.7 26.5 ± 0.9 28.1 ± 0.5 22.1 ± 0.3
row 1, (b) row 3, and (c) row 4 in different seasons in a
tunnel-ventilated layer house (OH2B-T). The error bars
indicate standard deviations.
standard deviations.
retrofitted layer house (OH2B). The error bars indicate
(a) row 1, (b) row 3, and (c) row 4 in different seasons in a
Fig. A3 e Average cage temperatures in different tiers at

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7
velocity in cages
Appendix B. CFD simulation results on air
Table B1 e Air velocity ± standard deviation (m s¡1) in each zone in a cross-ventilated layer house (IN2B).
Zone Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

A 0.50 ± 0.10 0.40 ± 0.05 0.28 ± 0.09 0.14 ± 0.07 0.12 ± 0.04 0.12 ± 0.04
B 0.74 ± 0.16 0.66 ± 0.14 0.48 ± 0.26 0.20 ± 0.16 0.18 ± 0.15 0.17 ± 0.16
C 0.64 ± 0.26 0.53 ± 0.13 0.36 ± 0.20 0.18 ± 0.11 0.15 ± 0.11 0.15 ± 0.10
D 0.46 ± 0.28 0.27 ± 0.13 0.21 ± 0.11 0.14 ± 0.09 0.13 ± 0.11 0.12 ± 0.12
E 1.64 ± 0.30 1.26 ± 0.18 1.26 ± 0.18 0.38 ± 0.08 0.49 ± 0.09 0.42 ± 0.08
F 0.42 ± 0.13 0.34 ± 0.08 0.23 ± 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10
G 0.56 ± 0.38 0.42 ± 0.27 0.30 ± 0.26 0.13 ± 0.13 0.10 0.10
H 0.52 ± 0.42 0.34 ± 0.21 0.24 ± 0.22 0.13 ± 0.11 0.10 0.10
I 0.44 ± 0.37 0.26 ± 0.21 0.17 ± 0.14 0.10 0.17 ± 0.22 0.15 ± 0.24
J 1.64 ± 0.35 1.27 ± 0.23 0.76 ± 0.14 0.37 ± 0.11 0.33 ± 0.13 0.32 ± 0.15
K 0.39 ± 0.21 0.21 ± 0.10 0.14 ± 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
L 0.47 ± 0.28 0.24 ± 0.16 0.15 ± 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10
M 0.31 ± 0.21 0.15 ± 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
N 0.42 ± 0.36 0.20 ± 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.15 ± 0.13 0.13 ± 0.10
O 1.57 ± 0.27 1.25 ± 0.16 0.75 ± 0.10 0.31 ± 0.09 0.26 ± 0.10 0.25 ± 0.07
1
Air velocities equal to or lower than 0.10 m s were shown as 0.10 m s1.

83
84 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7

Table B2 e Air velocity ± standard deviation (m s¡1) in

each zone in a tunnel-ventilated layer house (OH2B-T).
Zone Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
A-1 1.14 ± 0.34 0.36 ± 0.12 0.35 ± 0.12 0.32 ± 0.14
B-1 0.91 ± 0.25 0.31 ± 0.14 0.27 ± 0.10 0.22 ± 0.08
C-1 0.92 ± 0.22 0.26 ± 0.10 0.21 ± 0.09 0.15 ± 0.09
D-1 0.91 ± 0.20 0.28 ± 0.12 0.20 ± 0.08 0.12 ± 0.04
E-1 1.02 ± 0.24 0.31 ± 0.11 0.26 ± 0.13 0.22 ± 0.05
F-1 1.06 ± 0.18 0.32 ± 0.15 0.31 ± 0.15 0.28 ± 0.11
G-1 0.91 ± 0.16 0.32 ± 0.13 0.29 ± 0.12 0.25 ± 0.10
H-1 0.92 ± 0.22 0.27 ± 0.08 0.22 ± 0.08 0.18 ± 0.05
I-1 0.92 ± 0.24 0.29 ± 0.10 0.25 ± 0.11 0.21 ± 0.04
J-1 1.04 ± 0.26 0.40 ± 0.15 0.33 ± 0.13 0.25 ± 0.03
K-1 0.87 ± 0.24 0.21 ± 0.12 0.27 ± 0.10 0.21 ± 0.05
L-1 0.89 ± 0.18 0.21 ± 0.08 0.18 ± 0.11 0.11 ± 0.02
M-1 0.88 ± 0.19 0.24 ± 0.09 0.17 ± 0.08 0.11 ± 0.01
N-1 0.88 ± 0.21 0.23 ± 0.13 0.16 ± 0.05 0.10
O-1 0.80 ± 0.20 0.19 ± 0.05 0.22 ± 0.04 0.14 ± 0.07

A-2 1.00 ± 0.30 0.30 ± 0.20 0.26 ± 0.06 0.20 ± 0.05

B-2 0.87 ± 0.28 0.23 ± 0.18 0.16 ± 0.09 0.10
C-2 0.76 ± 0.29 0.18 ± 0.14 0.17 ± 0.10 0.11 ± 0.02
D-2 0.76 ± 0.22 0.19 ± 0.08 0.17 ± 0.11 0.12 ± 0.02
E-2 0.83 ± 0.24 0.20 ± 0.05 0.27 ± 0.12 0.22 ± 0.04
F-2 0.85 ± 0.18 0.22 ± 0.10 0.17 ± 0.08 0.11 ± 0.05
G-2 0.78 ± 0.26 0.24 ± 0.07 0.17 ± 0.04 0.12 ± 0.03
H-2 0.73 ± 0.28 0.20 ± 0.11 0.17 ± 0.09 0.11 ± 0.04
I-2 0.74 ± 0.15 0.21 ± 0.09 0.19 ± 0.10 0.15 ± 0.05
J-2 0.84 ± 0.22 0.32 ± 0.12 0.23 ± 0.13 0.18 ± 0.10
K-2 0.75 ± 0.26 0.21 ± 0.08 0.12 ± 0.05 0.10
L-2 0.75 ± 0.21 0.14 ± 0.10 0.10 0.10
M-2 0.72 ± 0.19 0.17 ± 0.03 0.12 ± 0.06 0.10
N-2 0.70 ± 0.14 0.14 ± 0.05 0.15 ± 0.04 0.10
O-2 0.38 ± 0.20 0.13 ± 0.04 0.17 ± 0.05 0.12 ± 0.02

A-3 0.54 ± 0.16 0.23 ± 0.08 0.23 ± 0.10 0.18 ± 0.04

B-3 0.47 ± 0.18 0.18 ± 0.10 0.14 ± 0.08 0.10
C-3 0.49 ± 0.23 0.12 ± 0.05 0.13 ± 0.02 0.10
D-3 0.54 ± 0.22 0.10 0.16 ± 0.04 0.11 ± 0.04
E-3 0.51 ± 0.12 0.12 ± 0.03 0.19 ± 0.03 0.14 ± 0.08
F-3 0.50 ± 0.15 0.21 ± 0.05 0.22 ± 0.08 0.19 ± 0.10
G-3 0.44 ± 0.13 0.19 ± 0.05 0.15 ± 0.05 0.12 ± 0.05
H-3 0.46 ± 0.14 0.13 ± 0.04 0.13 ± 0.04 0.10
I-3 0.52 ± 0.15 0.11 ± 0.05 0.16 ± 0.06 0.10
J-3 0.39 ± 0.12 0.15 ± 0.07 0.16 ± 0.05 0.10
K-3 0.41 ± 0.18 0.14 ± 0.06 0.15 ± 0.04 0.10
L-3 0.40 ± 0.20 0.13 ± 0.05 0.10 0.10
M-3 0.42 ± 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10
N-3 0.42 ± 0.21 0.12 ± 0.02 0.10 0.10
O-3 0.29 ± 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10
Fig. B1 e Average air velocity in cages with tier number at
(a) row 1, (b) row 3, and (c) row 4 in different seasons in a Air velocities equal to or lower than 0.10 m s1 are shown as
0.10 m s1.
cross-ventilated layer house (IN2B). The error bars indicate
standard deviations.
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7 85

Table B3 e Air velocity ± standard deviation (m s¡1) in

each zone in a retrofitted layer house (OH2B).
Zone Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
A-1 0.45 ± 0.08 0.18 ± 0.09 0.12 ± 0.07 0.10
B-1 0.36 ± 0.09 0.14 ± 0.17 0.10 0.10
C-1 0.74 ± 0.39 0.54 ± 0.6 0.79 ± 0.09 0.26 ± 0.04
D-1 0.52 ± 0.41 0.40 ± 0.33 0.26 ± 0.16 0.10
E-1 0.53 ± 0.29 0.40 ± 0.19 0.35 ± 0.07 0.12 ± 0.03
F-1 0.36 ± 0.20 0.20 ± 0.05 0.10 0.10
G-1 0.33 ± 0.21 0.21 ± 0.10 0.10 0.10
H-1 0.59 ± 0.56 0.44 ± 0.50 0.65 ± 0.17 0.20 ± 0.08
I-1 0.55 ± 0.50 0.37 ± 0.38 0.27 ± 0.22 0.10
J-1 0.54 ± 0.34 0.41 ± 0.32 0.37 ± 0.22 0.11 ± 0.04
K-1 0.23 ± 0.10 0.12 ± 0.04 0.10 0.10
L-1 0.32 ± 0.15 0.16 ± 0.09 0.10 0.10
M-1 0.63 ± 0.51 0.38 ± 0.39 0.38 ± 0.14 0.12 ± 0.38
N-1 0.94 ± 0.63 0.55 ± 0.34 0.24 ± 0.15 0.10
O-1 0.57 ± 0.29 0.51 ± 0.30 0.27 ± 0.10 0.10

A-2 0.51 ± 0.13 0.25 ± 0.05 0.18 ± 0.02 0.10

B-2 0.38 ± 0.16 0.23 ± 0.16 0.10 0.10
C-2 0.48 ± 0.16 0.30 ± 0.13 0.74 ± 0.08 0.24 ± 0.03
D-2 0.24 ± 0.18 0.18 ± 0.13 0.16 ± 0.11 0.10
E-2 0.26 ± 0.09 0.22 ± 0.07 0.29 ± 0.04 0.10
F-2 0.24 ± 0.13 0.18 ± 0.12 0.12 ± 0.04 0.10
G-2 0.28 ± 0.22 0.19 ± 0.19 0.10 0.10
H-2 0.35 ± 0.25 0.21 ± 0.21 0.57 ± 0.11 0.18 ± 0.05
I-2 0.31 ± 0.36 0.20 ± 0.16 0.18 ± 0.08 0.10
J-2 0.31 ± 0.14 0.20 ± 0.11 0.24 ± 0.11 0.10
K-2 0.15 ± 0.04 0.15 ± 0.06 0.13 ± 0.02 0.10
L-2 0.24 ± 0.15 0.20 ± 0.16 0.10 0.10
M-2 0.51 ± 0.45 0.23 ± 0.30 0.29 ± 0.12 0.10
N-2 0.50 ± 0.47 0.33 ± 0.22 0.15 ± 0.10 0.10
O-2 0.31 ± 0.09 0.23 ± 0.13 0.20 ± 0.08 0.10

A-3 0.39 ± 0.13 0.20 ± 0.06 0.18 ± 0.02 0.10

B-3 0.28 ± 0.16 0.14 ± 0.15 0.10 0.10
C-3 0.38 ± 0.16 0.23 ± 0.13 0.69 ± 0.07 0.22 ± 0.05
D-3 0.13 ± 0.18 0.10 0.11 ± 0.09 0.10
E-3 0.20 ± 0.07 0.17 ± 0.06 0.26 ± 0.05 0.10
F-3 0.20 ± 0.13 0.10 0.13 ± 0.03 0.10
G-3 0.19 ± 0.22 0.12 ± 0.18 0.10 0.10
H-3 0.25 ± 0.26 0.15 ± 0.20 0.53 ± 0.10 0.18 ± 0.05
I-3 0.16 ± 0.35 0.13 ± 0.18 0.15 ± 0.10 0.10
J-3 0.23 ± 0.14 0.14 ± 0.11 0.17 ± 0.10 0.10
K-3 0.18 ± 0.03 0.12 ± 0.05 0.15 ± 0.04 0.10
L-3 0.15 ± 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.10
M-3 0.59 ± 0.38 0.28 ± 0.31 0.23 ± 0.12 0.10
N-3 0.26 ± 0.30 0.20 ± 0.22 0.10 0.10
Fig. B2 e Average air velocity in cages with tier number at O-3 0.22 ± 0.11 0.12 ± 0.11 0.12 ± 0.08 0.10
(a) row 1, (b) row 3, and (c) row 4 in different seasons in a
Air velocities equal to or lower than 0.10 m s1 were shown as
tunnel-ventilated layer house (OH2B-T). Error bars indicate 0.10 m s1.
standard deviations.
86 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7
Fig. B3 e Average air velocities in cages with tier number at
(a) row 1, (b) row 3, and (c) row 4 in different seasons in a
retrofitted layer house (OH2B). The error bars indicate
standard deviations.
references
ASTM. (2002). Standard guide for statistical evaluation of indoor
air quality models (D5157-97). Annual book of American Society
for Testing Materials Standards. West Conshohocken, PA:
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Bjerg, B., Svidt, K., Zhang, G., Morsing, S., & Johnsen, J. O. (2002).
Modeling of air inlets in CFD prediction of airflow in ventilated
animal houses. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 34(1e3),
223e235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1699(01)00189-2.
Blanes-Vidal, V., Guijarro, E., Balasch, S., & Torres, A. G. (2008).
Application of computational fluid dynamics to the prediction
of airflow in a mechanically ventilated commercial poultry
building. Biosystems Engineering, 100(1), 105e116. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.02.004.
Chai, L., Ni, J.-Q., Diehl, C. A., Kilic, I., Heber, A. J., Chen, Y., …
Chen, L. (2012). Ventilation rates in large commercial layer hen
houses with two-year continuous monitoring. British Poultry
Science, 53(1), 19e31. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00071668.2011.643766.
Chang, J. C., & Hanna, S. R. (2004). Air quality model performance
evaluation. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 87(1e3),
167e196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-003-0070-7.
Chepete, J. H., Xin, H., & Li, H. (2011). Ammonia emissions of
laying-hen manure as affected by accumulation time. The
Journal of Poultry Science, 48(2), 133e138. https://doi.org/10.2141/
jpsa.010087.
Darr, M. J., Zhao, L., Ni, J.-Q., & Gecik, C. (2007). A robust sensor for
monitoring the operational status of agricultural ventilation
fans. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3), 1019e1027. https://
doi.org/10.13031/2013.23142.
Gates, R. S., Casey, K. D., Xin, H., Wheeler, E. F., & Simmons, J. D.
(2004). Fan assessment numeration systems (FANS) design
and calibration specifications. Transactions of the ASAE, 47(5),
1709e1715. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.17613.
Green, A. R., Wesley, I., Trampel, D. W., & Xin, H. (2009). Air
quality and bird health status in three types of commercial egg
layer houses. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 18(3), 605e621.
https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2007-00086.
Hadjab, M., & Medjahed, B. (2012). Comparison and statistical
validation of a model of a photovoltaic module. International
Journal of Energy, 4(6), 133e140.
Hanna, S. R., & Chang, J. (2011). Setting acceptance criteria for air
quality models. In D. Steyn, & S. Trini Castelli (Eds.), Air
Pollution Modeling and its Application XXI. NATO Science for Peace
and Security Series C: Environmental Security (pp. 479e484).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Heber, A. J. (2010). Emissions data from two manure-belt layer
houses in Indiana. Final report for site IN2B of the National Air
Emissions Monitoring Study. Durham, NC: U.S.EPA. https://
archive.epa.gov/airquality/afo2012/web/pdf/
in2bsummaryreport.pdf. (Accessed 10 May 2019).
Heber, A. J., Bogan, W. W., Ni, J.-Q., Lim, T. T., Ramirez-
Dorronsoro, J. C., Cortus, E. L., … Zhang, R. (2008). The national
air emissions monitoring study: Overview of barn sources.
Livestock Environment VIII - Proceedings of the 8th International
Symposium. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.25499.
JCGM. (2008). Evaluation of measurement data d Guide to the
expression of uncertainty in measurement. International
Organization for Standardization. https://doi.org/10.1373/
clinchem.2003.030528. Geneva ISBN, 50 (September).
Kim, K., Yoon, J. Y., Kwon, H. J., Han, J. H., Eek Son, J., Nam, S. W.,
… Lee, I. B. (2008). 3-D CFD analysis of relative humidity
distribution in greenhouse with a fog cooling system and
refrigerative dehumidifiers. Biosystems Engineering, 100(2),
245e255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.03.006.
Liang, Z. S., Westerman, P. W., & Arogo, J. (2002). Modeling
ammonia emission from swine anaerobic lagoons.
Transactions of the ASABE, 45(3), 787e798. https://doi.org/
10.13031/2013.8859.
Liang, Y., Xin, H., Wheeler, E. F., Gates, R. S., Li, H.,
Zajaczkowski, J. S., … Zajaczkowski, F. J. (2005). Ammonia
emissions from US laying hen houses in Iowa and
 b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 6 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 6 7 e8 7
Pennsylvania. Transactions of the ASAE, 48, 1927e1941. https://
doi.org/10.13031/2013.20002.
Liu, Z., Wang, L., Beasley, D. B., & Shah, S. B. (2009). Modeling
ammonia emissions from broiler litter at laboratory scale.
Transactions of the ASABE, 52(5), 1683e1694. https://doi.org/
10.13031/2013.29131.
Li, Q. F., Wang-Li, L., Bogan, B. W., Wang, K., Chai, L., Ni, J.-Q.,
et al. (2013). The National Air Emissions Monitoring Study’s
Southeast layer site: Part IV. Effects of Farm Management.
Transactions of the ASABE, 56, 1199e1209. https://doi.org/
10.13031/trans.56.9674, 2010.
Lu, Y., Hayes, M., Stinn, J. P., Brown-brandl, T., & Xin, H.
(2017). Evaluating ventilation rates based on new heat and
moisture production data for swine production. Transactions
of the ASABE, 60(1), 237e245. https://doi.org/10.13031/
trans.11888.
Maliselo, P. S., & Nkonde, G. K. (2015). Ammonia production in
poultry houses and its effect on the growth of Gallus Gallus
Domestica (broiler chickens): A case study of a small scale
poultry house in Riverside, Kitwe, Zambia. International Journal
of Scientific & Technology Research, 4(4), 141e145.
Ni, J.-Q. (1999). Mechanistic models of ammonia release from
liquid manure: A review. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 72(1), 1e17. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1998.0342.
Ni, J.-Q., Chai, L., Chen, L., Bogan, B. W., Wang, K., Cortus, E. L., …
Diehl, C. A. (2012). Characteristics of ammonia, hydrogen
sulfide, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter concentrations
in high-rise and manure-belt layer hen houses. Atmospheric
Environment, 57, 165e174. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2012.04.023.
Ni, J.-Q., Cortus, E. L., & Heber, A. J. (2011). Improving ammonia
emission modeling and inventories by data mining and
intelligent interpretation of the national air emission
monitoring study database. Atmosphere, 2(2), 110e128. https://
doi.org/10.3390/atmos2020110.
Ni, J.-Q., Diehl, C. A., Chai, L., Chen, Y., Heber, A. J., Lim, T.-T.,
et al. (2017). Factors and characteristics of ammonia, hydrogen
sulfide, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter emissions from
two manure-belt layer hen houses. Atmospheric Environment,
156, 113e124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.02.033.
OSHA. (2019). How much ammonia is too much? Part 2. https://www.
osha.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/fs4-howmuch2.pdf.
(Accessed 10 May 2019).
87
Patryl, L., & Galeriu, D. (2011). Statistical performances measures -
models comparison. International Atomic Energy Agency.
https://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras/
emras-two/first-technical-meeting/sixth-working-group-
meeting/working-group-presentations/workgroup-7-
presentations/presentation-6th-wg7-statistical-
performances.pdf. (Accessed 10 May 2019).
Theobald, M. R., Sanz-Cobena, A., Vallejo, A., & Sutton, M. A.
(2015). Suitability and uncertainty of two models for the
simulation of ammonia dispersion from a pig farm located in
an area with frequent calm conditions. Atmospheric
Environment, 102, 165e175. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2014.11.056.
Tong, X., Hong, S. W., & Zhao, L. (2019a). CFD modelling of airflow
pattern and thermal environment in a commercial manure-
belt layer house with tunnel ventilation. Biosystems
Engineering, 178, 275e293. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biosystemseng.2018.08.008.
Tong, X., Hong, S. W., & Zhao, L. (2019b). CFD modelling of airflow,
thermal environment, and ammonia concentration
distribution in a commercial manure-belt layer house with
mixed ventilation systems. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 162, 281e299. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compag.2019.03.031.
Tong, X., Hong, S. W., & Zhao, L. (2019c). Using CFD simulations to
develop an upward airflow displacement ventilation system
for manure-belt layer houses to improve the indoor
environment. Biosystems Engineering, 178, 294e308. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2018.08.006.
Tong, X., Zhao, L., Heber, A. J., & Ni, J.-Q. (2020). Mechanistic
modelling of ammonia emission from laying hen manure at
laboratory scale. Biosystems Engineering, 192, 24e41. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.01.004.
Tong, X., Zhao, L., Manuzon, R. B., Darr, M. J., Heber, A. J., & Ni, J.-
Q. Unpublished Results. Ammonia concentrations and
emissions at two commercial manure-belt layer houses with a
mixed used of tunnel and cross ventilation systems.
Biosystems Engineering, under review YBENG-D-20-00173
Wang, S., Zhao, L., Wang, X., Manuzon, R., Darr, M., Li, H., et al.
(2014). Estimation of ammonia emission from manure belt
poultry layer houses using an alternative mass balance
method. Transactions of the ASABE, 57(3), 937e947. https://
doi.org/10.13031/trans.57.10506.