Search

Makeup water constitutes a key component in the water management of microalgal cultivation systems. However, the effect of makeup water addition on microalgal growth remains largely unexplored. This study compared two deionized water addition intervals (1 day and 4 days) for their effect on the growth of Scenedesmus dimorphus (S. dimorphus hereafter) in 2000 mL Pyrex bottles under controlled conditions. Cell counts and dry algal biomass (DAB) were measured to characterize the microalgal growth rate. Water addition intervals impacted algal cell counts but had little effect on DAB. Adding makeup water every day resulted in a higher growth rate (8.80 ± 1.46 × 105 cells mL−1 day−1; p = 0.22, though) and an earlier occurrence of the peak cell count (day 9) than adding it every 4 days (6.95 ± 1.68 × 105 cells mL−1 day−1 and day 12, respectively). It is speculated that water loss over an extended period and the following makeup water addition posed stress on S. dimorphus. Surpassing the peak cell count, S. dimorphus continued to grow in DAB, resulting in an increased cell weight as a response to nutrient starvation. Optical density at 670 nm (OD670) was also measured. Its correlation with DAB was found to be affected by water addition intervals (R2 = 0.955 for 1 day and 0.794 for 4 days), possibly due to a water loss-induced change in chlorophyll a content. This study is expected to facilitate the makeup water management of photobioreactor and open pond cultivation systems.

For its small square footage, a vertical bed biofilter was developed for odor emission mitigation for livestock facilities with limited area available for biofilter installation. However, a concern about the design is that airflow and moisture may be poorly distributed across the biofilter due to the effects of gravity. Relevant data are sporadic in the literature. To fill the knowledge gap, two vertical bed biofilters were constructed at a university swine facility and monitored for two months. The monitoring was taken at 27 grid points on each biofilter per field visit. Results revealed that both the airflow and medium moisture content were unevenly distributed. The sun-facing side of the biofilters had significantly lower medium moisture content (p < 0.01) due to solar-induced water evaporation. The side directly facing the barn exhaust had the highest airflow. Airflows varied along the height of the biofilters, but no significant difference was noted. The uniformity of airflow and moisture content, characterized by coefficient of variance (CV) and distribution uniformity (DU) respectively, were examined over the monitoring campaign. Possible reasons for uneven distribution were explored and recommendations are made to address the uniformity issue. The findings from the study are expected to further the development and implementation of biofiltration technology for livestock odor control.

Particulate matter (PM) represents an air quality management challenge for confined swine production systems. Due to the limited space and ventilation rate, PM can reach relatively high concentrations in swine barns. PM in swine barns possesses different physical, chemical, and biological characteristics than that in the atmosphere and other indoor environments. As a result, it exerts different environmental and health effects and creates some unique challenges regarding PM measurement and mitigation. Numerous research efforts have been made, generating massive data and information. However, relevant review reports are sporadic. This study aims to provide an updated comprehensive review of swine barn PM, focusing on publications since 1990. It covers various topics including PM characteristics, sources, measurement methods, and in-barn mitigation technologies. As PM in swine barns is primarily of biological origins, bioaerosols are reviewed in great detail. Relevant topics include bacterial/fungal counts, viruses, microbial community composition, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, antibiotic resistance genes, endotoxins, and (1→3)-β-D-glucans. For each topic, existing knowledge is summarized and discussed and knowledge gaps are identified. Overall, PM in swine barns is complicated in chemical and biological composition and highly variable in mass concentrations, size, and microbial abundance. Feed, feces, and skins constitute the major PM sources. Regarding in-barn PM mitigation, four technologies (oil/water sprinkling, ionization, alternation of feed and feeders, and recirculating air filtration) are dominant. However, none of them have been widely used in commercial barns. A collective discussion of major knowledge gaps and future research needs is offered at the end of the report.