PB90-235094
Development and Selection of Amnionia Emission
Factors Cor the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory
All jnce Technologies Corp., Chapel Hill, NC
Prepared for;
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
-------
iBJO-21SQ9H
EP.A-600''7-90-014
June 1990
DEVELOPMENT AND SELECTION
OF AMMONIA EMISSION FACTORS FOfl THE
<985 NAPAP EMISSIONS INVENTORY
FINAL REPORT
By
Thomas E. Warn
Sharon Zeimanowltz
Mark Saeger
Alliance Technologies Corporation
100 Europa Drive
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4374
Work Assignment No. 43
Project Olflcer: Robert C, Lagemann
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
The Project Was Conducted In Association With The
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
REPRODUCEDBY
US DEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRNGFiaO.V* 22101
-------
TECHN JAL RETORT DATA
(Please read /muructkms on the reverse before completing)
1 FIEHMTNO 2
EPA-600/7-90-014
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCE&3IOVNO.
»90 2350 94US
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Development and Selection of Ammonia Emission Fac-
tors for the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory
6 REPi IT DATE
Junt 1990
6. PfcRE IrtMINQ ORQANIZAl ION CODE
7 AUTMOHISI
Thomas E. Warn, Sharon Zelmanowitz, and
Mark Saeger
a PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT HO.
9. PERFORM'NG ORGANIZATION NAME AKC> ADDRESS
Alliance Technologies Corporati 11
100 Europa Drive
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11, CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4374, Task 43
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF nrPORT AND PERIOD COVEREO
Task final; 8/87 - 12 "89
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
IS. SUPPLE. Mr NT NOTES a t - ><111 . , -n ft r ¦ , "
ALERL project otlieer R, C. I.agemann is no longer with the
Agency. For details, contact Carl T. Ripberger, Mail Drop 62, 919' 541-2924.
Xhe report, prepared lor the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Pro-
gram (NAPAP), identifies the most appropriate ammonia (NH3) emission factors
available for inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory. XH3 emission fac-
tors developed for several new NAPAP source categories were compared with fac-
tors developed for other inventories. Although many of the \H3 emission factors
presented in the report have lew quality ratings, tho»e factors determined to be the
most accurate for each category were selected for application to the Inventory, Emis-
sions factors and estimates of NHS emissions are included for human breath, cigar-
ette smoke, and human perspiration but, for reasons discussed, are not included in
the Inventory. NH3 emission? from wildlife excrement were investigated; while
there is not universal agreement, the report and other NAPAP research conclude
that the net contribution to ambient Nil3 is zero. The total NH3 emissions included
in the Inventory are 1,685,473 tons per year. The most significant X 113 sources,
accounting for 83% of the total emissions, were livestock wastes, wastewater treat-
ment, and ammonium nitrate manufacture.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIER S/OPLN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATi I*icld/Gioup
Pollution
Ammonia
Emission
Inventories
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Emission Factors
13R
07 B
14 G
15 E
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLA;'S (This Report}
Unclassified
21, NO. OF PAGES
55
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. TRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Age ncy policy arid
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse
ment or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report was prepared tor the National Acid Precipitation Assessmeni Program (NAPAP)
in order to identify the most appropriate ammonia (NHJ emission (actors available for inclusion in
the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory, Ammonia emission faciors developed for several new
NAPAP source categories were compared with factors developed lor other inventories The factors
determined to be the most accurate lor each category are presented in this report- Ammonia
emissions estimates based on 1985 activity levels and the emission factors presented in this report
are summarized. The total NH, emissions included in the inventory are 1,685,473 tons per year
(TPV), Emissions (actors and estimates of NH, emissions are presented for three categories that
were not included in the inventory, including emissions from human breath, cigarette smoke and
human perspiration. Emission factors and/or activity levels for these categories were riot sufficiently
reliable to justify their inclusion in the inventory The issue of ammonia emissions trom wildlife
excrement is of particular concern. The conclusions of this report and other NAPAP research
suggest that the net contribution of wildlife sources to the ambient concentrations ol ammonia is
zero, and ammonia emission factors equal to zero are presented in this report, The additional
NAPAP '©search suggests that any ammonia emissions from wildlife are reabsorbed into the natural
bio mass, resulting in a net release to the atmosphere of zero. This position is in conflict with
studies which recommend the application of ammonia emission factors for wildlife, thereby
suggesting that ammonia releases from wildlife sources may be significant. Clearly, further research
is required to resolve this issue. The most significant NH, emissions sources were livestock wastes,
wastewater treatment, and ammonium nitrate manufacture. These sources accounted for more than
83 percent of the total 1985 emissions. Emission factors for these major NH, sources were
assigned low confidence ralings which indicates that a more comprehensive and reliable NH,
emissions database for several significant source categories is needed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with
funding from the National Acid Precipitation Assessmeni Program's (NAPAP's) Task Group on
Emissions and Controls. Alliance would like to acknowledge the technical assistance and
contributions of J, David Mobley of EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, The
Canadian Environmental Protection Service, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration also provided important information used in this report.
i i i
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements - . . . , -j i f
Tables v-j
Executive Summary vii
1. Introduction 1
2 Ammonia Emissions , . 3
Introduction 3
Range Animal Excrement , . 3
Wildlife Excrement , , , 5
Foresi Fires 6
Cigarette Smoking 7
Human Breath . 8
Human Perspiration 8
Wastewater Treatment 9
3, Comparison of NAPAP Ammonia Emission Factors to Factors Developed
in Other Inventories 10
Livestock Waste Management 10
Co?I Combustion 19
Fuel Oil Combustion 2C
Natural Gas Combustion 21
Mobile Sources , 21
Ammonium Nitrate Production 22
Ammonia Synthesis 23
Urea Manufacture 23
Ammo'.ium Phosphate Manufacture . , , . 24
Anhydrous Ammonia Fertilizer Application 24
Petroleuri Refineries . 24
Coke Mr lufactui® 25
Wildlife bxcrement 25
Foresi Fires 26
Cigarette Smoking 26
Human Breath 26
Human Perspiration 27
Wastewater Treatment 27
4, Conclusions and Recommendations 28
Re'erences 35
Appendix A - Criteria for Assessing Emission Faclors A-1
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of Ammonia Emission Facto s Chosen for the 1985
NAPAP Emissions Inventory viii
2-1 Eniisslon Factors and Total 1900 Ammonia Emissions lor
Big Game Excrement 6
3-1 Comparison ol Ammonia Emission Factors 11
3-2 Amrr. -nia Content in Animal Manures as Percent ol Total
Nitrogen 17
3-3 Revised Ammonia Emissions for Livestock Waste Management 18
4-1 Summary ol Ammonia Emission Factors Chosen lor the 1985
NAPAP Emissions Inventory 29
vi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A major goal ol the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Progiam (NAPAP) is the
development ol a comprehensive and accurate emissions inventory lor pollutants which aro believed
to play a major role in the chemistry of acid deposition. Ammonia has been identified for inclusion
!n this inventory.
The purpose of this study was to identify the most appropriate ammon'a emission factors
available for inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory. This involved developing ammonia
. iission factors for source categories not covered under a previous NAPAP effort and comparing
emission factors developed in inventories prepared for NAPAP, the Canadian Environmental
Protection Service (EPS), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPfil), an J the NASA Langley
Research Center.
In this investigation, ammonia emission fac'ors were developed for range animal wastes,
wildlife excrement, cigarette smoking, human breath, human perspiration, and wastewater treatment
These categories, in addition to forest fires, were previously identified as potentially large ammonia
amissions sources. Relevant data were not available for developing an ammonia emission factor
for forest fires.
Though a few of the new ammonia emission factors developed in this study may be
considered natural ammonia sources, most natural source ammonia emission factors were developed
under a separate NAPAP effort by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The newly developed NAPAP factors were rated (A:highest-E:lowest) according to several
criteria including ihe validity of the test methods used, the age of the data, and the
representativeness of the database. Appendix A discusses these criteria in detail. All of Ihe new
NAPAP factors were assigned the lowest rating of E, except tor factors developed for human breath
and cigarette smoking which were assigned ratings of D and C, respectively,
Activity levels representative of the 1985 base year were used to estimate total emissions
by source category For wildlife excrement, reliable animal population data were noi available,
The comparison of ammonia emission factors developed by NAPAP, EPS, EPRI, and NASA
was based on the same criteria which were used to rate the NAPAP factors (see Appendix A). For
all source categories, the original NAPAP factors vwre chosen as the best available for inclusion
in the 1985 NAPAP Inventory. Table 1 summarizes the ammonia emission factors selected, their
ratings, 1985 activity levels, and 1985 emissions estimates.
v i i
-------
Although ammonia emission laclors are presented in Table 1 lor ;he categories cigarette
smoking, human breath and human perspiration, emissions (or these categories were not included
in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory. Ammonia emission factors equal to zero arc included in
Table 1 for wildlife categories. The decision lo exclude emissions lor ihese categories from the
inventory was justified by one or mon of Ihe following reasons:
* Conflicting research results upon which the emission factors were based contributed
significant uncertainty for Ihe application to the NAPAP program
Activity rate data were either unavailable or unreliable
Calculated emissions magnitude was loo small to be of interest to the NAPAP
program
The decision to exclude ammonia emissions from wildlife excrement was based on concerns
related to bolh Ihe sources of data available to develop the emission laclors and the uncertainty
in estimates of the activity rale data, The conclusions of this study and subsequent NAPAP
research suggest lhat the net contribution of ammonia from wildlife excrement is zero. This position
is in conflict with other research results which have recommended Ihe application of emission factors
for ammonia from wildlife sources, suggesting that ammonia emissions from wildlife sources may
be large.
The emission totals by source category indicate thai 48 percent of Ihe 1985 ammonia
emissions are due to range animal wastes. The lop four categories, range animal wastes, livestock
waste management, ammonium nitrate production, and wastewater treatment accounted for 83
percent of the total calculated 1905 ammonia emissions. However, ihe emission laclors for these
categories received low confidence ratings. This indicates a need for more accurate and
comprehensive ammonia emissions data for many significant ammonia source categories.
Major conclusions of this study are
1. Comparison of ammonia emission factors developed for NAPAP, EPS, EPRI
and NASA resulted in the recommendation of a set of factors for the 1985
NAPAP Inventory, In each category the original NAPAP emission factor
was found to represent ihe best available data,
2, Total ammonia emissions for 1985 can be broken down as follows:
• range animal wastes (48.0 percent)
• livestock waste management (23.2 percent)
• ammonium nitrate production {7.6 percent)
• wastewater treatment (4.6 percent)
- other categories (16,6 percent)
v i i i
-------
A more accurate and comprehensive ammonia emissions database should
be developed lor;
range animal wastes
livestock waste management
wildlife wastes
wastewater treatment
lores! lires
human breath and perspiration
ammonium nitrate manufacture
mobile sources
coal and fuel oil combustion
coke manufacture
ix
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF AMMONIA EMISSION FACTORS CHOSEN FOR THE 1985 NAPA? EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Source
Emission
factor
(lb emitted/
unit)'
Actl/lty
rate'
Units
1885
Emissions
(tons/yr)'
Emission
factor
rating*
Livestock Wastes
Beef cattle feedlcts
Cropland spreading
beef cattle
dairy cows
swtne
sheep
laying hens
broilers
turkeys
Combustion Sources
Coal
Fuel oil
Natural gas
utility boilers
industrial boilers
commercial boilers
13
1.7
2?
4,3
1.9
0.34
0.043
0.29
0.00056
0.8
3.2
3.2
0.49
2.3x10'
6.5x10*
4.5x10s
4,9x1 Q7
1.9x10*
2.9x10*
5.0x10*
3.9x10'
8.4x10*
3.4x107
3.5x10*
1.1x10?
7,3x10®
animals
animals
animals
animals
animals
animals
animals
animals
tons coal
10® gallons fuel
10s If gas
10s ft1 gas
10s ff gas
151,543
5,541
60,736
105,457
1,809
49,839
10,781
5,579
235
13,563
5,703
17,788
1,800
E
TZ
L-
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
c
Mobile Sources
Gasoline
leaded gasoline
unleaded gasoline
Diesel
0.42
0.63
0.95
5.3x107
5 9x107
2.8x107
10s gallons fuel
103 gallons fuel
103 gallons fuel
11,168
18,646
3,206
D
D
E
(continued)
-------
Emission
laCor
(lb emitted/
Source unit)*
Ammonium Nitrate Manufacture
Neutralize r
anulator 18*
high density prilling 18*
low density prilling 18*
Solids formation
evapo ratio n/concentration
high density 17"
low density 17*
high density prill towers 57-2
low densrty prill towers 0.26
rotary drum granulalcr 59.4
high density priil coolers 0-04
low density prill coolers 0.30
low density prill dryers 16*
granulator coolers 119
Anhydrous Ammonia Fertilizer
Application "*9
Petroleum Refineries
FCC units 54
7CJ urJs e
Reciprocating eng.iie
compressors 02
TABLE 1. (continued)
1905 Emission
Activity Emissions factor
rate" Units (tons/yr)° rating'
1.9x10* tons produced 17,818 D
2.4x10s tons produced 21,820 D
9.0x10s tons produced 8,080 D
5.8x10s tons produced 4,905
3,2x10s tons produced 2,726 D
2.4x10s tons produced 68,244 A
6.4x10s tons produced S3 A
1.4x10s tons produced 4,011 D
7.2x10s to produced ">6 A
0 tons produced 0 A
1.5x10s tons produced 116 D
0 tons produced 0 D
5.4x10s tons fertilizer 50,988 C
16x10® 103 barrels fresh feed 42,793 B
1,7x10' 10a barrels fresh feed 52 B
h 10" ft® gas burned h B
(continued)
-------
Emission
factor
(lb emttied/
Source unit)"
Ammonia Synthesis
Carbon dioxide regeneration 2-0
Condensate stripping 2.2
Urea Manufacture
Solution formation/
concentration 19-2
Solids formation
nonfiuidized bed prilling
agricultural grade °-87
lluidized bed prilling
agricultural grade 2-9
feed grade 41
drum granulation 2.2
roiary drum cooler 0.0051
Coke Manufacture
Oven charging 0 02
Door leaks 0 06
Coke pushing f-'
Quenching (contaminated
water) 0.28
Ammonium Phosphate
Manufacture
0.14
TABLE 1. (continued)
1985 Emission
Activity Emissions factor
rale" Units (tons/yr)* rating
4.9x10* tons produced 4,896 A
3.1x10® tons produced 3,464 A
#.8x10e tons produced 44,122
0 tons produced 0 A
5-2x1 Q5 tons produced 749 A
1,0x10* tons produced 21 A
2.6x10* tons produced 2,897 *
4.1x10s tons produced 0-1 <
3.6x107 tons coal charged 358 D
2.1x10' tons coal charged 645 D
2.7x10' tons coal charged 1,364 D
2.7x10' tons coal charged 3,525 D
8.2x10" tons PjOs produced 571 A
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Source
Emission
factor
;ib em Wed/
unit)*
Activity
rate11
Units
1S85
Emissions
(tons/yr)*
Emission
factor
rating"
Range Animal Excrement
Beef cattle
Dairy Cattle
Swine
Sheep
Wastewater Treatment
Wildlife Excrement*
Big Game
carnivores
herbivores
Birds
Cigarette Smoking"
Human Breath'
Smokers
Non-smokers
Human PersplratFon'
44.4
45,0
39.0
4.5
19 0
0,0
0.0
0,0
1.8
9.1
12.0
0.55
2.6x10*
4.9x10*
4,8x10*
1.0x107
8,2x10*
h
h
h
7,5x107
7,5x10T
1,5x10"
2.3x10e
unconfined pop
unconfined pop
unconfined pop
unconfined pop
10* gallons
kg animal
kg animal
kg animal
1G3 smokers
103 smokers
10s non-smokers
person
578,890
109,725
94,593
22,606
77,762
h
h
h
68
340
911
60,000
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
'All factors chosen were developed by NAPAP unless otherwise indicated.
"Activity rates zm from the 1985 NAPAP Emission Inventory.
(continued)
-------
Table l. (continued)
X
<
'Emissions totals do no. inc'ude 44,218 tons Irom minor point source process emissions, area source category 99.
'See Appendix A and this report tor explanation ot ratings. (A is highest, E is lowest)
¦Emission factor is Irom mid-point ot range reported in AP-42.
'Rating is lower than Ihal reported in AP-42 because of the listing ot a single tactor rather than a range (as in AP-42).
'Emission tactors as high as 1.6 lb/kg animal tor of the wilderness environment
^he^N^PAF^re^^r^results^a^ed'o^ <5fed ammonia measurements in the wilderness environmen, support the zero emission tactor
assumptions presented in Table 1.
h Noi available-
^-.•SSKsr.BS= xrsstz —
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
in 1980, Congress established the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP)
lo coordinate and expand research on problems posed by acid deposition in and around the Uriiied
Slates, As a part of this program, the Emissions and Controls Task Group is responsible tor the
development ol a comprehensive emissions inventory Including all atmospheric compounds believed
to play a significant role in the formalion ol acid deposition, Ammonia (NH3) has been identilied
as one such compound.
The purpose of Ihis document is to identify the most appropriate set ol NH, emission factors
lor inclusion in Ihe 1985 NAPAP Emissions inventory by developing emission factors lor source
categories not included under a previous, NAPAP ellort1 and by comparing factors developed by
NAPAP with those developed lor inventoiies sponsored by the Canadian Environmental Protection
Service (EPS),1 the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRIf and the National Aeronaulics and
Space Administration (NASA),4
The new NAPAP factors that are discussed in this document were considered tor application
to potentially significant ammonia sources for the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory. The categories
include wastewater treatment, range and wild animal excrement, cigarette smoking, forest lires,
human breath, and human perspiration. With the exception of the wastewater treatment category,
emissions for these new source categories were not included in the inventory because either the
emission lactors or activity levels were unreliable. These factors were multiplied by activity rates
tor 1985 to develop estimates of the annual ammonia emissions. The factors were rated on a scale
of A through E, with A representing the highest level of confidence iri the factor and E the lowest
level of confidence- The ratings were based on several criteria Including the age of the data, the
reliability of test methods used, the size of the database, the representativeness of the database,
and the accuracy ol information upon which engineering esiimates were m^e. Appendb A
describes the methodology used to assign data quality ratings.
All ammonia emission factors presented in this document were compared with faciois
developed lor previous inventories sponsored by EPS, EPRI, and NASA to identity the most
accurate set of factors for inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory, The criteria used lor
rating the NAPAP factors were also used to compare factors among the inventories.
Finally, the factors chosen were multiplied by nationwide activity levels lor 1995 to develop
annual emissions estimates lor ammonia source categories.
Ammonia emission factors for wildlite categories were not developed for application to the
19B5 NAPAP Emissions Inventory, The conclusions of this and other NAPAP rasearch5 suggest
1
-------
thai the net contribution el natural wildlife to atmospheric ammonia concentrations Is zero.
Therefore emission factors equal lo zero art represented In the summary tables In this report for
wildlife categories. The current information relevant to wildlife ammonia emissions is discussed in
the text of the report. A high degree o! unceitainly is associated with the application of any
ammonia emission factors for wildlife categories. The conclusions of this study suggest that the
net contribution of ammonia to the ambient air from wildlife excrement is zero. This position
conflicts with the results of other studies which suggest that ammonia emissions from wildlile
sources may be large.
2
k
-------
SECTION 2
AMMONIA EMISSIONS
INTRODUCTION
Ammonia emission I actors have been developed previously for use by NAPAP'. Emission
factors were not available, however, for a number ol potentially important categories, In this section,
ammonia emission factors ar presented lor the following natural and anthropogenic sources: range
animal excrement; wildlife excrement; forest fires; cigarette smoking; human breath; human
perspiration; and wastewater treatment. The emission (actors developed are rated on a scale of
A through E, with A representing the most reliable rating and E the least reliable. The criteria which
were used to evaluate the data quality of the emission factors are discussed in Appendix A.
Emissions estimates are also presented lor some ot these categories, depending on the availability
of reliable activity data.
RANGE ANIMAL EXCREMENT
Approximately 67 percent of all livestock wastes are produced by unconlined animals.
Though recently there has been a treM toward conlinement, unconfined systems will likely continue
to dominate in (he beet, dairy cattle and sheep industries.®
The nitrogen deposited with liv-'ock manure slurry (a mixture ol feces and urine) on ranges
and pastureland is subject to ammonia volatilization. The rale of volatilization depends on such
variables as the ammonia content cf the manure, manure placement, ambient temperature, wind
ve'ocity, and the pH of the manure. Other common mechanisms ot ammonia loss from livestock
manure include nitrification ?nd piani uptake.
Ammonia emissions per acre from range animals largely depend on the stocking rales and
dung distributions. Robbins (1978)6 presented typical stocking rates and animal weights for several
livestock categories. He n ported average stocking rales ot 3.5, 9, 7, and 12 head/acre and
average animal weights ot 935. 1100, 66, and 440 lbs/animal lor beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep,
and swine, respectively. Sweeten and Reddell (1976)7 presented graphical data relating manyrial
nitrogen detecated on the soil surface to average animal stocking rates in units ot ftJ/ib. Typical
stocking rates were used lo find the number of pounds of nitrogen defecated per acre-year from
this graph. The nitrogen excreted was found lo be 500, 1200, 95, and 900 lbs N/acre-yr, or 143,
133, 13.6, and 75 lbs N/animal-year for beet cattle, dairy cattle, sheep, and swine, respectively.
3
-------
Ammonia volatilization losses from range animal manure depend on the NH4-N content ol
the manure (nitrogen present as ammonium), Weslerman et al. (1985)* collected dtfi on manure
characteristics and reported average nh4-N contents in fresh manure c( 32, 3, and 52 is a percent
of total nitrogen for beet cattle, dairy cattle, and swine, respectively. Since their NH«-N estimate for
dairy cattle manure appeared to be unusually low and was based on only three dais poWs, an
estimate of 35 percent NH,-N presented by Overcash et al. (1983)' was used instead. This
estimate was based on twelve data points. No data were avs liable on the NH,-N content ol sh^ep
manure. An average oi NH<-N estimates for be«jf and dairy cattle manure (34 percent) was used
for sheep.
Typical ammonia volatilization rates in the range setting are difficult to quantify. However,
many studies have been conducted to determine volatilization rates from surface-applied animal
manures. Assuming that there is no piling ol manure in the range setting, volatilization rates would
be simtlir liom range animal manure and surface-spread manure, The no-piling assumption
presents a worst-case scenario. However, it appears to be a reasonable assumption, since
Sweeten (1976)' reported that at the end of a typical animal-year ol cattle grazing, more than 30
percent of a pasture would have received no manure, 17 percent would have received one
defecation, and only 3 percent of the pasture would have received more than one defecation.
Wesierman et al. (1985)* gathered data from several studies which measured ammonia
volatilization losses trom surface-spread animal manures. They reported an average ammonia
volatilization loss ol 80 percent ol the applied NH4-N seven days after application. This average
was based primarily on a study by Lauer et al. (1976)15 in which volatilization losses were estimated
from surface-applied dairy manure by periodically measuring the total ammoniacal nitrogen content
of manure samples collected from the soli surface. Hoff et al. (1981)" reported an 82 percent loss
of NH4-N applied with surfac spread swine manure, In estimating volalilization losses as a percent
of NH,-N applied, 80 percent vas used for volatilization from cattle and sheep manure and 82
percent for losses from swine manure.
Ammonia emission factors for the various livestock categories were calculated by multiplying
nitrogen excreted (Ibs/animal-yr) by the NHt-N contents to determine the amount of NH,-N excreted
(Ibs anii al-yr), The NH<-N excreted was then multiplied by a molecular weight conversion factor,
1,21, to obtain lbs NH3/animaI-yr, Finally, Ihe emission factors were calculated by multiplying
ammonia excreted by Ihe percent volatilization.
To calculate total ammonia volatilisation, the emission factors were multiplied by unconfined
animal populations, Unconfined populations were obtained by multiplying total animal populations
obtained from the 1982 Census of Agricui'ure, by the percent of animals unconfined, presented by
Robbins (1978)' as 80, 52, 04, and 9 percent for beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep, and swine
respectively. Total 1985 ammonia emissions from range animals were 005,821 tons.
An E rating was assigned to the emission factors for range animal excrement, since no
database was available to specifically quantify ammonia emissions from range anirml wastes, and
it was necessary to make many assumptions to derive the factors
4
-------
WILDLIFE EXCREMENT
Separate ammonia emission (actors were developed lor carnivores, herbivores, arid birds
because ol differences in diet and manure characteristics among wildlife species. The emission
laclors for wildlife excrement developed in this study were based on research results conducted on
animals in confined settings and were not representative of conditions in wilderness environments.
Additional NAPAP research representative of natural wilderness conditions suggests that the net
contribution ol ammonia trom wildlife is zero 5 Therefore, emission lactors equal to zero are
included in the summary tables in this report. Data from Golley et al. (1965)1* were used to
estimate ammonia emissions fron carnivore excrement. In this study, feces and urine production
were measured from eight bobcats in a laboratory. The bobcats were led on diets ol either
chicken, rabbit, or deer meat.
Average feces production lor the bobcats was 25 g/day. Since tho average weight of the
bobcats was 6.5 kg, the manure production was 3.1 fes/kg animal-year. Nitrogen constitutes
approximately 3,7 percent ot animal manure.'1 Assuming that livestock wastes and carnivore wastes
have sin Jar NH4-N contents, about 40 percent of the tola! nitrogen excreted would be in the form
of NH,-N 7 Thus, approximately 0.05 lbs NH.-N or 0.06 lbs NH. were excreted per kg animal-year.
The average bobcat urine production was 238 ml/day. Based on urea concentration of 120
g/l urine and an ammonia ooncei,ration of 68 g NH/I urine, the average ammonia produced in the
urine of the bobcats was 16 g/bobcal-day or 2.0 lbs Ni ykg animal-year.
The combined ammonia contents ol the leces and urine give an ammonia content ol the
manure slurry (a mixture of leces and urine) of 2 1 lbs NH/kg animal-year. Given this estimate,
the average volatilization rate irom surf ace-spread manure slurry of 80 percent presented by
Westerman et al. (19B4)' was applied to estimate volatilization fiom carnivore slurry, which yielded
the emission tactor of 1.6 lbs NHy'kg animal-year lor excrement from carnivorous wildlile.
The emission factor lor excrement produced by herbivorous wildlife was derived Irom data
lor livestock wastes, since domestic livestock have a vegetarian diet, Data presented by Westerman
el al. (1984)7 suggesl that the average ammonia produclicn in manure slurry from dairy cattle, beef
cattle, and swine is 0,17, 0.12, and 0.25 lb?'kg animal-year, Assuming an average ammonia
volatilization rate of 80 percent for surface-spread manure slurry7, the emission factor for herbivorous
wildlile Is 0.14 lbs NH,/kg animal-year,3
Data on Hie characteristics of poultry manure were used to derive a separate ammonia
emission factor for wild birds, Loehr (1968}'J reported an average manure production for poultry
of 0.0062 ftVday and an average manure density of 60 lbs/ft3 for Iresh manure mixed with urine.
Therefore, the average manure production was 0,37 lbs manure/day with an average nitrogen
content of 5.4 percent. Westerman et al. (1984)' presented an average ol 33 percent NH.-N
content based on total nitrogen lor fresh poullry manure mixed with urine. Thus, 0.0066 lbs NH4-N
5
-------
TABLE 2-1. EMISSION FACTORS AND TOTAL 1980 AMMONIA EMISSIONS
FOR BIG GAME EXCREMENT
Potential
Emission factor
Avg. wt*
Emissions
Animal
(lbs NH3/kg anlmal-yr)
(kg)
Population"
(lons/yr)
Antelope
0.14
45
234,000
737
Barbary Sheep
0.14
NA
500
NA
Bear
1.6
NA
37,100
NA
Bighorn Sheep
0.14
120
16,100
152
Bullalo
0.14
NA
800
NA
Caribou
0-14
95
250,000
1,660
Deer
0,14
75
1,230,000
6,460
Elk
0.14
270
70,100
1,320
Wild Boar
1.6
NA
8,300
NA
Moose
0 14
400
87,900
2,460
Mountain Goat
0,14
NA
5,200
NA
'Reference 3,
'Relerence 19.
are excreted pe" bird each day. Assuming an 80 percent volatilization rate7, the emission (actor
for bird manue is 2-35 lbs NH-ybird-year, or 1.3 lbs NH^kg bird-year.
In order to calculate ammonia emissions, average weights and populations are needed lor
each wildlife species. Table 2-1 presents total emission estimates lor big game animals by wildlife
type, where sullioient data were available. Due to the lack of reliable wildlife population data and
the uncertainties associated with the emission (actors, NH, emissions Irom wildlife were not included
in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory. Further NAPAP research suggests thai ammonia emission
in the wilderness setting are reabsorbed into the nalural bio mass, resulting in a net release ol
ammonia lo the atmosphere ot zero.5 If the ammonia emissions are largely reabsorbed into the
biomiss in the natural setting, then regardless ol the emission (actor or emission rate, the net
release ol ammonia emissions lo the atmosphere would approach zero. The decision to exclude
wildlife ammonia emissions Irom the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory Is in conflict with studies that
present emissions (actors for application, thereby suggesting thai ammonia emissions Irom wildlife
may be significant.
FOREST FIRES
Ammonia emissions Irom forest fires have been considered negligible in most emissions
inventories. Although the emission factor is small, the total emissions from this source may be
significant due to the large amount of forest land that burns each year,
6
-------
Reliable Information on ammonia emissions could not be located lor this category. A few
emissions inventories, including that prepared tor EPS, have presented a laetor ot 0.3 lbs NH/ion
wood burned lor ammonia emissions from forest fires. The rationale lor the selection of this factor
was an inventory by Wholers and Bell (1956)".
Since no verifiable emission factor could be boated for ammonia from forest fires, this study
does not present one and does not recommend a factor for the 19S5 NAPAP Emission Inventory.
Rather, it i& recommended that reliable data be developed for ammonia emissions Irom this source.
CIGARETTE SMOKING
Cigarette smoke results from the incomplete combustion of tobacco and consists mainly of
nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, argon, and methane." Sloan and
Merle <1974)1" measured ammonia in tobacco smoke using an ammonia electrode. Cigarettes were
smoked by a one-port, syringe-type smoking machine a 1 justed to operate at one 35-ml, two-second
puff per minute. To measure ammonia, an Oricn Model 95-10 ammonia electrode was used in
conjunction with the Orion Model 407 specific-ion meter.
Two domestic cigarette brands (one wilh a filter and one wilhout a filter), one European
brand (dark tobacco), and two non-commercial types (burley tobacco and flue-cured tobacco) were
used in the study. Seven analyses were performed on each cigarette type- The average ammonia
content of the smoke from the various cigarettes was 81.8 ug Nbycigareiie.
Newsome et al. (19S2)'s measured the content of several compounds in cigarette smoke.
A simple smoking machine was used whbh replicated normal human puff volumes of 40 ml and
appropriate velocity distributions during the two-second puff durations. Ammoniacal compounds iri
the smoke were determined by the Nessler procedure. This method did not distinguish between
ammonium compounds and free ammonia. The experiment showed average ammonia contents of
12, 13, and 7,6 ug/40 ml puff ior cigarettes with no filter, acetate filters, and seeta'e adsorbent
fillers, respectiveI/. The average ammonia content of smoke from these cigarettes was 11 ug
NHj/puff. Assuming an average of 11 pufis per cigarette, the resulting factor is 121 ug
NHj/cigarette. The overall ammonia emission (actor was taken as an average ever both studies,
or 100 ug NHycigarette.
Total ammonia emissions Irom cigarette smoking in 1900 were calculated using statistical
data from a national health survey " A total population of 160,708 was sampled, of which 52,442
or 23 percent were smokers. Therefore, of the total population of the United Stales in 1980
(226,546,000), approximately 74,760,180 persons were smokers. The study reported an average
of 22 cigarettss smoked per person each day or 6030 cigarettes per year. Thus, approximately 1-3
X 10s lbs MM, cr 65 Sons were emitted from cigarette smoke in 1980. Since the to al emissions of
ammonia from cigarette smoking based on 1980 population data are insignificant, estimates were
not includsd in Ihe 1905 NAPAP Emissions Inventory.
7
-------
The ammonia emission (actor for cigarette smoke was based on current data with reliable
test methods. Since the database was small, a rating of C was assigned to this (actor,
HUMAN BREATH
Ammonia Is produced by the human body as a metabolic end product A portion ol this
ammonia is exhaled through respiration.
Nefedov f t al. (1969)" studied the content of contaminants in the human expired air ol 10
smokers and 11 non-smokers. Ammonia and amino compounds were determined by the
colorimetric test with Nesslei's reagent- The average ammonia content of expired air was 0.56
mg/mJ for smoke is arid 0,76 mgW for non-smokers, Nefedov asso reported an average of 20
mVday air expired per person Thus, ammonia emis jh facwts io- human breath ware calculated
as 9.1 lbs NHj/1000 person-year lor smokers and 12.0 ibs NH/SOOO person-*/oyr tor non-smokers.
To estimate total ammonia emissions from human breath, 1980 population eaiimates lor
smokers and non-smokers in the United Slates were multiplied by the factors derived. In 1980, a
total population of 226,546,000 was reported, with 33 percent or 74,760,180 estimated as smokers
and 151,785,020 as non-smokers." Therefoie, total 1980 ammonia emissions were 340 tons/year
tor smokers, 911 tons/year for non-smokers and 1250 tons/year for the entire U.S. population.
The factors developed lor human breath were given a D rating. Although reliable 'est
methods were used, the database was small and the test used by Nefedov ef al. (1969)" did not
distinguish between ammonia and amino compounds. Since the reliability of the emission facto."
for human breath is tow and total emissions based on 1980 population are insignificant, emissions
from human breath vwre not included in the 1985 NAFAP Emissions Inventory.
HUMAN PERSPIRATION
Pari ol the ammonia produced by the human oody as a melabolic product is emitted to the
atmosphere as perspiration. Altman and Dittmer (1968)1" reported that 24,5 g urea are typically
pioduced each day by the human body (assuming a body weight ol 70 kg). Approximately 5
percent of this is released through perspiration as ammonia.80 Thus, lha emission factor for human
perspiration was calculated as 1.5 Ibs NHj/1000 persons-day or 0.55 Ibs NH3/persort-year,
This (actor was multiplied by the total U.S. population for i960.17 The total ammonia
emissions due to human sweat in 1980 were estimated at 60,000 tons.
The ammonia emission factor lor human perspiration was given a low confidence rating ol
E because the database was small and the data were difficult to verily. Since the ammonia
emission factor for ammonia emissions from human perspiration was highly uncertain, emissions for
this category were not included ir the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory.
8
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Ammonia volatilization rales from publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) are dillicult lo
quantify accuratsly. The highly variable nature of the physical/chemical composition of wastewater,
the variety of treatment processes available, and the mode/efficiency jf selected operations are
important variables affecting the (ate ol free ammonia in wastewater, Various Ire at me nl alternatives
can also promote several different NN3 removal mechanisms simultaneously. Without detailed
information describing the treatment processes and specific operational parameters, estimation of
the relative importance of the competing NH,-N removal mechanisms involved during wastewater
treatment operations, such as nitrification, bacterial assimilation, adsorption, and volatilization, must
be based on engineering Judgment.
Evaluation ot the ammonia emission potential from POTWs began wun a review of the 1984
Needs Survey data collected by the EPA Office of Municipal Pollution Control.2' Influent and effluent
ammonia concentrations for over 950 wastewater treatment facilities nationwide are Included in this
survey. The mean influent NH, N removal elliciency derived from the data is approximately
75 percent. This level of NHa-N removal correlates well with accepted engineering assessments",
and is supported by relevant research involving the efficiency of nitrogen removal from wastewater
treatment operations."
The concentration of NH3-N present in untreated domestic wastewater of average strength
is approximately 25 mg/i" Assuming typical operations 1 that the facility data used to calculate
the 75 percent NHj-N removal efficiency are representative of the more than 15,000 POTWs
operating in the United States, approximately 19 mg NHS-N would be removed during wastewater
treatment for every liter of influent treated.
Research has shown that the efficiency of air stripping of free ammonia is greatly dependent
on the treatment process and operational parameters. For example, results obtained by Lee and
Naimie" in a 19B4 study of ammonia removal mechanisms showed a dependency on pH tor air
stripping efficiency ranging from over 90 percent at a pH of 10.0 to less than 10 percent at a pH
ol 7.5. Since the pH of untreated domestic wastewater generally ranges between 7.0 and 8.0, the
NH3-N removal rate due to air stripping would be about 10 percenl under normal treatment
operations. The emission rate for ammonia from POTWs was thus estimated at 10 percent of the
amount of NH,-N removed by trealmenl operations, or 1.9 mg/liler of influent treated.
An emission factor n' 1,9 x 10s lbs of NH^galion of wastewater influent treated was
developed by simply manipulating the units of the estimated emission rate from mg/lltei lo lbs/gallon.
To calculate total ammonia emissions Irom POTWs nationwide, the emission factor was multiplied
by the 8.2 x 10" gallons of industrial wastewater treated by POTWs in 1984." The resulting total
ammonia emissions from POTWs estimated for 1965 were 77,760 tons.
Broad assumptions were necessary to develop an emission factor for wastewater treatment
due lo the variations in operating procedures and trealmenl methods employed at different facilities.
Thus, an E raling was assigned to the emission (actor for POTWs.
9
-------
SECTION 3
COMPARISON OF NAPAP AMMONIA EMISSION FA« i ->RS TO
FACTORS DEVELOPED IN OTHER INVENTORIES
;n this seclion, NAPAP ammonia emission factors, which were developed lor application lo
the 1980 NAPAP Emissions inventory,' are compared to factors developed tor inventories sponsored
by the Canadian Environmental Protection Service (EPS)®, the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRlf, and the NASA Langley Research Center4 The objective of the comparative analysis was
to identity the most appropriate factors for use in the development of the 1985 NAPAP Emissions
Inventory.
Table 3-1 summarizes the ammonia amission factors developed by EPRI, NASA, EPS, and
NAPAP. For many source categories, there are large discrepancies between the emission factois.
The reasons for such large discrepancies include the lack ol a good database characterizing
ammonia emissions from most sources and the lack of standard methods for measuring atmospheric
ammonia. The selection of appropriate emissions factors for application to the 1985 NAPAP
Emissions Inventory is based on an objective analysis of the credibility of the information used to
develop the emission factors, For some categories the emissions facators were manipulated to be
consistent with the format and structure ol the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory,
LIVESTOCK WASTE MANAGEMENT
Cropland Spreading of Manure
The EPRI and NASA factors lor livestock waste management were consistently higher than
the NAPAP factors for each animal type. The NAPAP factors for animal waste, which have recently
been revised, did not differ signilicantly from the factors developed by EPS; however, the
two studies used extremely divergent methods to derive their respective factors,
The EPRI iactors ft 'eslock wast© management used an overall 50 percent volatilization
rate based on total nitrogen excreted. Althc/jgh the 50 percent figure was referenced to several
studies in the EPRI report, Adrhno el si. (1974)" found nitrogen losses ranging from 26 to
46 percent of total nitrogen applied with cattle manure in a greenhouse. Therefore, 50 percent is
larger than the highest loss measured. In addition, nitrogen losses measured in this study were not
ail due to volatilization. Other mechanisms of nitrogen loss such as denitrification and leaching of
NOj would be included in their estimate as well. The 50 percenl volatilization rate was also
referenced to Giddens and Rao (1975)." Review of this study revealed that a volatilization rate of
10
-------
TABLE 3-1. COMPARISON OF AMMONIA EMISSION FACTORS
Source
Sneep
Laying hens
Broilers
Turkeys
Beef Cattle Feedlois
Combustion Sources
Coal
Fuel Oil
Natural gas
utility boilers
industrial boilers
commercial boilers
Mobile Sources
leaded gasoline
unleaded gasoline
diesel
NASA*
Livestock Waste Management
Beef cattle
Dairy cows
34
71
7
0-4
0,4
2
1
0.3
2.0
2-0
Emission Factors
EPRI" EPS'
103
88
14
9
3.8
0.8
2.2
1-9
0.97
3.24
3.20
0.49
0.64
0.64
0.95
18
18
1.4
1-8
2
1
2-0
2.0
2.0
NAPAP
1.7
27
4.3
1.9
0.34
0.043
0.25
13.0
0.00056
0.8
3.2
3,2
0.49
0.42
0.63
0.95
Units
Ibs/anirnal
lbs/animal
lbs/animal
lbs/animal
lbs/animal
lbs/animal
lbs/animal
Ibs/anirnal
lbs/tons coal
lbs/103 gallons
lbs/10s ft"
lbs/10® ft3
lbs/106 ft3
ibs/10* ff
lbs/10' gallons
lbs/103 gallons
lbs/ 10s gallons
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1. (Continued)
Source
NASA®
Emission Factors
EPRf EPS"
Ammonium Nitrate Manufacture
With granulator
With prill tower
Neutralize r
Solids formation
evaporation/concentration
high density prill towers
low density prill towers
granulators
high density prill coolers
low density prill coolers
low density dryers
granulator coolers
Ammonia Synthesis
Carton dioxide regeneration
Condensate stripping
Loading ?nd storage
3.8
2-0
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.4
0,4
2.0
40
NAPAP
18*
17*
57,2
0.26
59,4
0.04
0.30
1.6*
1.19*
2.0
2.2
Units
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
Ibsflon
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1. (Continued)
Source
NASA3
Emission Factors
EPRI* EPS*
NAPAP
Units
Urea Manufacture
Solution formation/
concentration
Solids formalion
nonfluidized bed prilling
agricultural grade
fiuidized bed prilling
agricultural bed
feed grade
drum granulation
rotary drum cooler
Anhydrous Ammonia Fertilizer
Application
Ammonium Phosphate
Manufacture
Petroleum Refineries
FCC units
TCC units
Reoip.ocating engine
compressors
4.35
20
60
0.08
54
6
18-24
0-87
2.9
4.1
2.2
0.0051
19
0-14
54
6
0.2
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/Ion
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
lbs/101 barrels
lbs/103 barrels
lbs/103 ff gas
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1. (Continued)
Source
NASA*
Emission Factors
EPRI" EPS*
Coke Manufacture
Oven charging
Door leaks
Coke pushing
Quenching (contaminated
water)
Range Animal Excrement
Beet Cattle
Dairy Cattle
Swine
Sheep
Wastewater Treatment
Wildlife Excrement'
Big Game
carnivores
herbivores
Birds
Forest Fires*
Cigarette Smoking"
0.02
0-06
0-1
0.41
0.036
0.3
100.0
NAPAP
0-02
0.06
0.1
0-28
44
45
39
4.5
19
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Units
lbs/ton
lbs/ion
lbs/ton
lbs/ton
Ibs/animai
Ibs/animai
Ibs/animai
lbs/animal
lbs/10* gallons
lbs/kg animal
lbs/kg animal
lbs/kg animal
lbs/ton wood
ug/cigaretle
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1. (Continued)
Source
Emission Factors
NASA* EPRI" EPS" NAPAP Units
o 5 - lbs/10* persons
Human Breath* J- Q1 9i1 lbs/103 persons
Smokers "" ^ 12 lbs/103 persons
Non-smokers
Human Perspiration'
055 „ 0,55 lbs/person
•Reference 3.
"Reference 2,
'Reference 1.
"NASA and EPfli emission factors are tor all livestock wastes. EPS emission factors are for wastes from feedlots, NAPAP emission
factors for cattle teedlots and cropland spreading of wastes are shown separately.
'Emission factor for NAPAP is from the midpoint of range reported in AF-42.
Ed7eloTedaCThesaeS e^misstVfad'SfweTbased oTresSch^ of ^wilderness environment.
ammonia measurements in .he «Merness environment support .he zero em,ss,on
factor assumptions presented in Table 1.
'Emission factor was developed but emissions for these categories were not included in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory due to
unreliable activity rales or emission factors or because the total emissions were insignificant.
- No emission factors reported. Industrial sources were accounted for in the NASA inventory although no emission factors were
presented.
-------
47,6 percent ol the total nitrogen applied was measured lor poultry manure only. The basis for the
assumption of 50 percent ammonia loss could nol be verified.
The EPRl factors also did not consider differences in manurial ammonia conlents between
livestock categories and did not account for manure injection. Injection of animal manures reduces
volatilization tosses dramatically and is an increasingly popular method of manure application since
II encourages the conservation of applied nutrients,
The factors developed by NASA for livestock waste management were based on an
85 percent volatilization rale and excretion rates presented by Loehr, 1968 n These factors did not
account for differences in ammonia content between animal types. The volatilization rate used was
lor surface-applied manure only and did not account for manure applied by injection. Since neither
NASA nor EPRl provided for the lower volatilization rates ol injected manure, the NASA and EPRl
factors may have overestimated ammonia emissions from livestock waste management-
EPS developed factors for cattle, swine, and sheep in feedtots only. Their factor
development was based on the assumption that most of the ammonia emitted from animal waste
comes from urine rather than feces, They utilized data on average daily urine production tor
herbivores and carnivores20'" and a 10 percent volatilization rale (Healy et al, 1970)®° to obtain
ammonia emission rates,
1 he omission ol the nitrogen in feces from EPS ammonia emission factor calculations leads
to an underestimation ol ammonia emissions. Numerous studies characterizing livestock wastes
have shown that an average of 50 percent of total manurial nitrogen is present as NH4-N,* In this
lorm nitrogen may be readily volatilized. Further, depending on the cartoon:nitrogen ratio of manure,
a fraction of manurial nitrogen may be transformed into N.' -N over lime." In addition, the
volatilisation rate used by EPS (10 percent) appears low since numerous studies designed to
measure ammonia volatilization from surface-spread manure slurry report an average ol 80 percent
volatilization ol applied NH.-N * EPS also used one factor for all animal types. This does not
account for differences in NH<-N contents in the manure and urine of various livestock types.
The NAPAP ammonia emission factor for cropland spreading ol animal manures has been
revised to reflect individual NH4-M contents of manure by livestock category. Previously, an average
NH4-N content was used over all animal types. The revised (actors are more accurate since they
are based on separate NH4-N contents of 43, 38, 58, and 73 percent of total nitrogen for dairy
cows, beel cattle, swine, and poultry, respectively (Table 3-2). Since the NH.-N content of sheep
manure was not available, an average N(- J comer,t ol dairy cow and beel cattle manure
(41 percent) was used, The volatilization rates were based on the average ol several studies which
included data for surface-spread and injected manure, various manure types, and different manure
management practices.'
16
-------
TABLE 3-2. AMMONIA CONTENT IN ANIMAL MANURES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL NITROGEN*
Manure Type
Dairy Cows
Beef Cattle
Swln®
Poultry
Fresh
3
32
52
33
Scraped
24
5
28
58
Slurry
39
38
64
75
Lagoon
67
71
81
86
Average*
43
38
58
73
"Fsroenlagws wot swaged I* manure that was scrapod, slurried, and held in lagoons,
These factors were also revised for consistency with other NAPAP lactors. The factors for
cropland spreading ol livestock waste which had been previously developed represented NHt-N
emitted rather than NH, emitted. Since all other NAPAP are expressed in terms ol NH, emitted and
not In terms ot NH4-N, the factors lor cropland spreading were multiplied by a molecular weight
conversion (actor, 1.21, to obtain the revised factors.
Table 3-3 outlines the revised emission factors which were developed for cropland spreading
of animal wastes. Data on total manure voided, nitrogen excreted, and nilrogen available for
cropland spreading were obtained from Van Dyne and Gilbertson (1970)" (Table 3-3). Emission
factors were developed by multiplying the nitrogen available for spreading by the NH.-N content of
each manure type and by a 59 percent volatilization rate. This result was multiplied by a molecular
weight conversion factor and divided by the animal population for 1974" to obtain lbs NH,
emitted/animal-year. Annual ammonia emissions were then calculated by multiplying the factors by
animal populations for 1980 obtained from the 1982 Census of Agriculture. Revised emission
factors and emissions estimates appear h Table 3-3. The total revised ammonia emissions lor
cropland spreading of animal manures is 520,000 tons/year.
NAPAP emission factors for livestock waste management included factors for cattle feedlols,
as well as cropland spreading. NAPAP developed an emission factor for beet cattle feedlols
utilizing over 56 data points from studies which measured ammonia emissions at cattle feedlots,
Data were obtained from an EPA study" and a study conducted at a Colorado feedlot."
Due to the many variables associated with the measurement ol ammonia irom livestock
wastes, several assumptions were necessary to derive ammonia emission factors from livestock
wastes for each inventory. The NAPAP factor, however, appears to be the most reliable since it
is based on the widest database and considers differences between animal types and application
methods. Therefore, the NAPAP lactors for livestock waste management are recommended tor
inclusion in ttie 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory.
17
-------
TABLE 3-3. REVISED AMMONIA EMISSIONS FOR LIVESTOCK WASTE MANAGEMENT
Animal
Manure production"
(tOJ tons/yr)
Manure
N
Manure for spreading*
(10' tons/yr)
Manure
N
Emission factors"
(lbs NH^anlmal-yr)
Animal
population0
(1982)
1985
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Cattle
62,485
1,666
17,897
304
1.7
6.5 x 10*
5,541
Dairy Cow
25,210
814
20,358
498
27
4.5 x 10s
60,736
Swine
13,360
1,086
5,538
284
43
4.9 x 10'
105,457
Sheep
3.796
147
1,700
46
1.9
1.9 x 10®
1,809
Laying Hens
3,374
158
3,259
92
0.34
2.9 x 10'
49,839
Broilers
2,086
136
2,434
122
0.043
50 X 10*
10,781
lumens
1,251
76
983
36
0.29
3.9 x 107
5,579
TOTAL
111,562
4,083
52,169
1.384
239,742
'Reference 29,
"Calculated by multiplying nitrogen available for spreading by (percent of total nitrogen as NH4-N. by 1.21) and by 59 percent (percent of
ammonia in manure that volatilizes) and dividing by animal populations for 1974 (Reference 21). For sheep manure, 41 percent (an average
NH.-N content over cattle and dairy cow manure) was used.
"Figures lor cattle, dairy cows, swine, laying hens, and broilers are taken from reference 11- Figures for sheep and turkeys are taken from
reference 21.
-------
Range Animal Excrement
NAPAP was ihe only ammonia inventory that induced a separate emission factor for range
animal excrement (sse Section 2). EPRI included range and pasture lands as an emission source
based on land use categories, The EPRI factor tor paslureland was based on data by Denmead
et al, <1976)** for l ngrazed pasture only. They used the same factor (5,8 kg NH/rrf-day) tor
grazed arid ungrazed pastures even though one would expect much greater emissions it a pasture
were grazed due to manure deposits. The EPRI factor for rangeland was based on an upper limit
from a study by Miner (1976)" in which ammonia was estimated from several areas at a dairy farm.
The NAPAP tactcrs for range animal excrement (see section 2) were on a per animal basis
rather than a per area basis. This approach accounted (or all manure and urine produced by range
animals. The factors were based on data characterizing nitrogen production, stocking rales, manu«e
distribution, ammonia content, and volatilization rales by animal group. This per animal approach
Is consistent with Ihe development ol factors from other agricultural systems which involve ammonia
emissions from manure such as tecdlots and land spreading ol manures. Thereto re, the NAPAP
factors tor range cattle excrement are recommended tor inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions
Inventory.
Application to the 1905 NAPAP Emission inventory
A composite emission lactor was developed lo represent ammonia emission trom livestock
waste management practices for application to the 1985 NAPAP Emission Inventory. The composite
factors were developed by calculating the average of Hie emission factors lor cropland spreading
and range animal excrement, weighted by the percent of the populations that were confined and
unconlined. These weighted average factors were applied to the categories lor beef cattle, dairy
cattle, swine, and sheep.
The distributions of confined and unconlined populations for each of these categories have
been presented by Robbins (1978).* The resultant emission factors that were applied for livestock
waste management are 36.9 lb/animal for beef cattle; 36.4 lb/animal lor dairy cattle; 7.4 lb/ariimal
for swine; and 4.1 lb/animal for sheep. These emission factors were then rmilliplied by total animal
production data by stale obtained from the 1982 Census of Agriculture lo represent 1985 Emissions.
COAL COMBUSTION
The NAPAP ammosila emission factor for coal combustion is smaller than Ihose cited by
EPS, EPRI, and NASA by a factor cf 1000. The EPS and NASA factors are identical (2.0 lbs
NHj/lon coal) and were traced to a import by Whalers and Bell (1956)." This reference presented
no basis for the estimate, An effort was initiated to locate an original data source for this factor;
however, the origin of this factor could not be ascertained.
19
-------
The EPRI factor (1.9 lbs NH/ion coal) was developed Irom Wholers and Bell (1956) and
tram factors ol 2,6 and 1.06 lbs NHj/ton coal presented by Sonderlund (1977)3' and Muzio and
Arand (1976)™, respectively. The Sonderlund laclor was obtained Irom Hill (1945)" which was
based on a pre-1945 study, The Muzio and Ararid factor was based on tests performed on a
laboratory scale firetube boiler firing bituminous coal. The study was designed to study the effects
of ammonia injection on the release of nitrogen oxides during coal combustion. The factor (1,06
lbs NHj/ton coal) was based on one data point without ammonia injection. Another point in the
study with ammonia injection released only 0.03 lbs NH,/lon coal.
The NAPAP factor for ammonia from coal combustion is 0.00056 lbs NHyton coal. This
laclor was based on a full-scale study at a Wisconsin power plant,*' Bauer and Ancfren (1985) took
six samples from each of two 527-megawatt furnaces fired with bituminous coal. The units
consumed 2 x 10s kg dry coal/hour. The NAPAP factor was based on an average emission rate
over Unit II only, since Unit I operated with the addition of ammonium carbonate which is not
representative of current practices. Additional support for the NAPAP emission factor is afforded
by bench-scale evaluation conducted by the US EPA Industrial Environmental Laboratory.38 The
results of these evaluations showed that the combustion of medium volatile bituminous coal formed
essentially no NH„ even under extremely fuel-rich conditions.
Selective catalytic reduction is an ND„ reduction process which uses ammonia as a reagent.
Thus, most of the ammonia emissions measured from these units would be due to the NO, control
system and not coal combustion itself. Based on this factor for selective catalytic reduction,
NAPAP's emission factor for coal combustion (0.00056 lbs NH/tor, coal) appears to be more
reasonable than the 2,0 lbs NHL,/ton coal reported by EPA, EPRI, and NASA.
Although the NAPAP factor differs greatly from those developed by EPS, EPRI, and NASA,
it represents more recent and reliable data. The other factors are based on unverifiable and
outdated sources, Therefore, for coal combustion the NAPAP emission factor of 0.00056 lbs
NHj/ton coal is recommended for inclusion in the 1905 NAPAP Emissions Inventory, It should be
noted, however, that this factor was based on only six data points from a single boiler firing
bituminous coal, In order to develop a more representative factor, more data should be generated
on ammonia emission from coal combustion,
FUEL OIL COMBUSTION
The NAPAP, EPS, EPRI, anc NASA ammonia emission factors for luel oil combustion are
all in good agreement. Nevertheless, they will be evaluated in order to determine the most
reasonable factors.
The EPS and NASA factors (1 lb NH.,/101 gallons) were traced back to an inventory
presented by Wholers and Bell (1956) '* The original data used to develop this factor could not be
located,
20
-------
The factor developed lor EPRI (0,97 ibs NhyiQ3 gallons) was based on an average ol
factors developed lor residual and distillate oils, The EPRI factor for residual oil was based on
W holers and Bell (1956) and on an average ol Iwo tests by Muzio and Arand {1976)® This study
used a 200,000 BTU/hr unit at 2 percent excess air. Their distillate oil factor was derived from
Hovey and Risman {1966)* who obtained the factors from two studies conducted earlier than 1954.
NAPAP's ammonia emission factor for luel oil combustion (0.8 Ibs NH^103 gallons) was
developed Irom the Muzio and Arand (1976) data used by EPRI." Though this factor was based
on only two data points, it is the most reliable since EPS, EPRI, and NASA all based their factors
on unverihable data presented by Wholers and Bell (1956)14 which were over three decades old.
Therefore, NAPAP s emission factor for fuel oil combustion is recommended for inclusion in the 1985
NAPAP Emissions Inventory,
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
For natural gas combustion, NAPAP and EPRI developed identical factors. EPS did not
present factors for this category. The NASA factors were based on values reported by the National
Academy of Science (1979)" which were traced back to studies over three decades old with little
information available on the test melhods used.
The NAPAP factors for natural gas boilers were developed from a 200,000 BTU/hour
laboratory gas combustor* Separate factors were developed for utility, industrial, and commercial
boilers. Each factor was based on weighted averages over varying conditions of excess oxygen
as recommended by Cass et al.(1982).M The factors were based on 55 data points.
The factors developed by NAPAP and EPRI for ammonia from natural gas combustion are
recommended for inclusion in the 1985 Emissions Inventory. NASA's factors were based on out-
dated studies with little information available on the lest methods used.
MOBILE SOURCES
NAPAP and EPRI developed similar emission factors for mobile sources. NASA and EPS
developed identical factors.
The EPS factor (2 Ibs NHj/iO4 gallons) was based only on vehicles with three-way catalytic
converters. This would tend to overestimate ammonia emissions.
The NASA 1 actor (2 Ibs NH3/10J gallons) was based on studies over three decades old."
This factor Is suspect due to the changes in design and performance of automobiles over the past
few decades.
Both the NAPAP and EPRI ammonia emission factors (or mobile sources were based on
studies by Henein (1975)", Gentel (1973)40, Ha,'kins and Nicksic (1967)4', and Cadie and Mulawa
(1980)*!. These studies measured ammonia emissions from vehicles with and without catalytic
converters, using leaded, unleaded, and diesel luels. NAPAP developed separate factors for leaded,
21
-------
unleaded, an.1 diesel fuels by taking averages over these categories. EPRI did the same, but did
not use as many data points as did NAPAP, Therefore, EPRi's factor differed slightly from the
NAPAP factor for leaded gasoline.
Sines the NAPAP factors were developed from the most current and the largest database,
the NAPAP ammonia emission factors for mobile sources are recommended lor inclusion in the
1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory, These factors are 0.42, 0.63, and 0,95 lbs NHa/l05 gallons fuel
lor leaded, unleaded, and diesel fuels, respectively.
A composite emission factor was calculated for gasoline highway vehicles. The composite
emission factor was calculated as an average oi the leaded and unleaded gasoline factors weighted
by the percentage of each fuel type sold nationwide. The Petroleum Supply Annual 1985 indicates
that 35.5 percent of the gasoline sold in 1985 was leaded and 64.5 percent was unleaded. The
weighted average emission factor based on this split between leaded and unleaded gasoline is
0,54 lb/10' gallon. This emission factor was multiplied by the county level gasoline consumption
data to estimate ammonia emissions from highway gasoline vehicles. Oil highway gasoline vehicles
were assumed to use leaded gasoline.
AMMONIUM NITRATE PRODUCTION
The ammonia emission factors developed by NAPAP, EPS, and EPRI to- ammonium nitrate
production differ significantly and were developed at varying degrees of specificity. NASA did not
present an emission factor lor this source category.
EPS developed separate factors for neutralizers, evaporation/ concentration, and prill towers
as 1.0, 1.0, and 0.4 lbs NH^ton respectively. These lactors were developed from questionnaires
sent lo Canadian manufacturing facilities. Their factors do not differentiate between high and low
density prill towers. They also did not include factors for granulators, prill cooles, prill dryers, and
granulatcr coolers.
EPRI presented factors cl 3.8 lbs/ton and 2.0 lbs/ton for processes with granulators and prill
towers, respectively. These factors were based on factors developed in AP-42 (Supplement 13)
(1S82)" which has since been revised.
NAPAP developed laclors of 18, 17, 57.2, 0.26, 50, 0.04, 0.30, 1,6, and 1 for neutralizers,
evaporatiorvconcentralion, high density prill lowers, low density prill lowers, granulators, high densily
prill coolers, low densily prill cooiars, low densily prill dryers, and granulator coolers, respectively.
These factors were based on the revised AP-42 (Supplement 15)*1 Where AP-42 reported a range,
NAPAP used the mid-point. These factors were assigned ratings of A in AP-42 except for the factor
for neutralizers which was rated B. This represents a high level ol confidence in the factors,
The NAPAP ammonia emission laclors lor ammonium nitrate manulacture represent the best
available data and, therefore, are recommended for inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions
Inventory.
22
-------
AMMONIA SYNTHESIS
Ammonia emission factors (or ammonia synlhesis were developed by NAPAP, EPS. and
EPRI. For cartoon dioxide regeneration, NAPAP and EPS developed identical factors. NAPAP
developed the only factor lor condensate stripping and EPS developed the only factor for loading
ami storage- EPRI developed one general factor for ammonia synthesis, NASA did not present
a factor for this source category.
The EPS factor for cartoon dioxide regeneration (2.0 lbs/ton) v/as based on AP-42,m The
factor lor loading arid storage (40 lbs NH^ion) was based on an article which Is out of print and
could not be located.48 Since, the vaiiduy of the factor tor loading and storage could not be verified,
it is rated E, representing an uncertain level of confidence.
EPRI presented one general factor for ammonia synlhesis (3.2 lbs NH^ton) which was
based on a version of AP-42 which has since been revised,4'
The NAPAP emission factors lor ammonia synthesis are 2.0 and 2,2 lbs Nhyton for carbon
dioxide regeneration and condensate stripping, respectively. These factors were based on AP-42*
which rated the factors developed at A, representing a high level of confidence in the data.
The factors for ammonia synthesis presented by EPS and NAPAP are recommended lor
inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory, since they represent the best available data.
UREA MANUFACTURE
NAPAP and EPRI developed ammonia emission factors for urea manufacture. EPRI
presented one general factor, while NAPAP developed separate factors for several processes in
urea manufacture.
EPRI reported a factor of 4.35 lbs Nhyton which was obtained from AP-42 (Supplement
13)" which has since been revised.
NAPAP developed factors of 18.24, 0,87, 2.91, 4.14, 2.15, and 0.0051 lbs NHyton for
solution formation/concentration, nonfluidized bed prilling (agricultural grade), fluidlzed bed prilling
(agricultural grade), feed grade, drum granulation, and rotary drum cooler, respectively, These
factors were derived from AP-42 (1984)" and were given the highest confidence rating of A, except
for the factor for rotary drum coolers which was given a rating of O,
The NAPAP ammonia emission factors for urea manufacture represent the most up-to-
date and accurate dala available and are recommended for inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions
Inventory.
23
-------
AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE MANUFACTURE
NAPAP and EPS developed similar ammonia emission factors for ammonium phosphate
manufacture. EPR1 and NASA did not present factors for this category.
EPS reported a factor of 0,08 lbs NHr'ton P20#. This laetor was based on questionnaires
sent to Canadian manufacturing facilities.
NAPAP reported a factor of 0.14 lbs NHa/ton Pz05 which was based on factors reported in
AP-42.m The factor was based on test data from controlled phosphate fertilizer plants in Florida
and was rated A in AP-42,
Since the NAPAP data was based on a reliable database and matched closely with data
obtained in Canada, the NAPAP ammonia emission factor for ammonium phosphate manufacture
is recommended for the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory.
ANHYDROUS AMMONIA FERTILIZER APPLICATION
NAPAP, EPS, and NASA developed ammonia emission factors for anhydrous ammonia
fertilizer application. The NAPAP and NASA factors agree favorably at 19 and 20 lbs NH,/ion,
respectively. The EPS factor is much higher (60 lbs NH,/ton).
The EPS factor was based on a 3 percent loss of applied ammonia, The reference for this
rate could not be located.
The NAPAP factor was based on a study by Denmead et al,(1977)41 in which anhydrous
ammonia was injected at a rate of 583 lbs nitrogen per acre at an average depth of 4.9 inches,
NAPAP rated this factor at C since it represented accurate, current test methods but a small
database.
The NAPAP factor, which agrees well with the NASA factor, is recommended for the 19B5
NAPAP Emissions inventory. The EPS factor could not be verified and was rejected because it was
much greater than the NAPAP and NASA factors,
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
NAPAP and EPS developed identical ammonia emission factors for Fluid Catalytic Cracking
(FCC) units and Thermal Catalytic Cracking (TCC) units ol petroleum refineries. The factors were
54 lbs NHj/10' barrels for FCC units arid 6 lbs NHj/10* barrels for TCC units, NASA and EPRI did
not present ammonia emission factors lor petroleum refineries.
The EPS factors were based on information published by U.S. EPA (1977),w The NAPAP
factors were taken from AP-4213 where they were assigned a high confidence rating of 0. NAPAP
also used an AP-42 factor for reciprocating engine compressors (0.2 lbs NH/10"' ft3 gas).
24
-------
The identical factors developed by EPS and NAPAP lor FCC and TCC units and the NAPAP
(actor for reciprocating engine compressors are recommended (or Inclusion In lha 1985 NAPAP
Emissions Inventory.
COKE MANUFACTURE
NAPAP and EPS developed identical ammonia emission (actors lor coke manufacture. EPRI
and NASA did not include factors for this category in their inventories.
Both NAPAP and EPS derived their iaclors from AP-42.m Amn onia emission (actors tor
oven charging, door leaks, and coke pushing are 0,02, 0.06, and 0.1 lbs NH»/ton, respectively. The
data for these factors were provided by a Polish report to the United Nations on air pollution from
coke plants.54 NAPAP presented a factor tor quenching as well (0.20 lbs NH,/lon), This factor
originated from tests conducted at a Polish coke plant and a U.S. Steel pla'it.15,14
Though the I actors developed by NAPAP .and EPS waia based on a limited database, they
represent the best factors available and are recommended for inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP
Emissions Inventory.
WILDLIFE EXCREMENT
EPRI and NASA did not develop ammonia emission factors specifically for wildlife
excrement, EPS used two factors to characterize all animal waste emissions; 0,41 lbs NH/kg
animal-year for carnivores and 0,036 lbs NHykg animal-year tor herbivore^, As discussed earlier
in this seclion while comparing factors lor livestock wastes, the EPS factor assumes that all
emissions are derived from urine alone. This assumption ignores a good deal of available nitrogen
in the feces that is emitted from the 1ecss/urir»e mixture, Aiso. the 10 percent volatilization rale
used by EPS appears low, due to the several studies that reported an average of SO percent
volatilization rate from domestic animal manure slurry (a riixture of feces and urini, based on NH,-
N applied."
Although NAPAP derived ammonia emission factors for carnivores, herbivores, and birds
(see Section 2), these factors were based on assumptions that are not applicable to the wilderness
setting. The factor lor carnivores (i ,b lbs NH,/kg animal-year) was based on feces and urine
production by bobcats measured by Golley it al.(l965),z and typical nitrogen and ammonia contents
(or livestock wastesThe factor for herbivore wastes (0.14 lbs NHj/kg animal-year) was based
on data for livestock excrement.8 The emission factor for birds (1.3 lbs NHykg bird-year) was
derived irom data on production and nitrogen content ol poultry manure," Section 2 or this report
describes NAPAP's development of Ihese factors and the reasons for not using these factors In the
1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory, The wildlife categories are included in the summary tables in
this report with emission factors equal to zero and a footnote to reinforce the position that these
categories represent potential sources ')! ammonia.
25
-------
It appears that Ihe assumptions made by EPS led io an underestimation of ammonia from
livestock wastes for carnivores and heitoivores. NAPAP's factors were also based on many
assumptions. NAPAP considered emissions from the nitrogen in feces as well as that in urine,
while EPS did not. In addition, NAPAP developed a separate factor for bird manure. Reliable data
on the population ol wildlife were not available and the developmenl of emissions factors relied on
the applicaton of data collected in settings other than the natural ecosystem, Additional NAPAP
research suggests that any ammonia emissions resulting from wildlife excrement in the natural
setting are reabsorbed by the biomass, therefore, resulting in a net release of ammonia from wildlife
of zero.' For these reasons th«. ammonia emission factors for wildlife presented in this report are
zero and ammonia emissions for wildlife were not included in the inventory.
FOREST FIRES
C je to a lack of verifiable data, an emission factor for ammonia from forest fires is not
recommended for inclusion in Ihe 1985 NAPAP Inventory. The factor presented by EPS was based
on unverifiable source-"
CIGARETTE SMOKING
tPS and NAPAP developed identical ammonia emission factors lor cigarette smoking (see
Section 2). NASA and EPRI did not present factors for this source category.
EPS and NAPAP utilized dala from the same tm studies to develop their factors. Sloan
and Morie (1974)'* measured ammonia from cigarette smoke with an ammonia electrode. They
conducted seven analyses on each of several types of cigarettes, Newsome et al, {1982)"
measured ammonia using Nessler's procedure from cigarettes with no filter, acetate filters and
acetate adsorbent filters, The average over Ihese studies resulted in a factor of 100 ug/cigarette
presented by El'S aid NAPAP. Since the emissions of NH, lor this category based on 1980
population dala are ^significant, this category was not included In the 1985 NAPAP Fmissions
inventory,
HUMAN BREATH
Ammonia emission factors for human breath were developed by EPRI, EPS, and NAPAP.
The EPRI factor (3.5 lbs NH/I000 person-year) was based on a value reported by Kuppart et al,
(1976)." This (actor did not distinguish between smokers and non-smokers.
NAPAP and EPS both used data from a Russian study in which ammonia was monitored
from the breath of 10 smokers and 11 non-smokers.14 The average ammonia content was 0.56 and
0.76 mg/m' expired air for smokers and non-smokers, respectively. For non-smokers, the EPS
study used an average ammonia content of 0.B39 mg NH,/ma expired air, Apparently, ihey divided
26
-------
the total ammonia from 11 non-smokers by 10 rather than 11 lo obtain an average. Based on an
average 20 m3/day air expised per person1*, NAPAP developed factors of 9,1 and 12.0 lbs NHj/1000
person-year for smokers and non-smokers, respectively (see Section ZJ. These factors represent
the best available data; however, since the factors are uncertain and the emissions based on 1980
population data are insignificant this category was not included in the 1985 NAPAP Inventory
HUMAN PERSPIRATION
Identical ammonia emission factors tO.SP lbs Ntyperson-year) were developed by EPRI and
NAPAP for human sweat (see Section 2). This factor was based on a typical urea production
presented by Altman and Dittmer (1968)" and a 10 percenl loss of this urea as ammonia,20
This 1 actor was highly uncertain and is not recommended for inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP
Emissions Inventory, A larger and more current database sh d be generated for this source
category since human perspiration apparently accounts lor a good deal of atmospheric ammonia.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
NAPAP was the only inventory lo develop a factor lor wastewater treatment. The NAPAP
factor was based on the i984 Needs Survey, which includes influent and effluent ammonia
concentrations lor over 850 wastewater treatment facilities nationwide2' and on research on ammonia
stripping from treatment plants (see section 2). The NAPAP factor (19 lbs NH3/10S gallons of
wastewater treated) was raled E due to the many assumptions needed lo derive the factor.
However, since this factor was based on the best data available and resulted in an emissions
estimate ol 77,762 tons for 1984 (see section 2), it is recommended for inclusion In the 1985
NAPAP Emissions Inventory.
27
-------
SECTION 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Trie development arid evaluation ol ammonia emission factors published in several
inventories has resulted in the recommendation of a sot of factors lor inclusion in the 1985 NAPAP
Inventory, The factors selected were deemed the most appropriate available based on the validity
of the test methods used, the age ol the data, and the representativeness and size of the database
from which the factors were derived (see Appendix A),
Ammonia emission factors were developed for several new NAPAP sources including range
animal wastes, cigarette smok'ng, human breath, human perspiration, and wastewater treatment as
described in Sections 2 and 3. Emission factors for range animal excrement and wastewater
treatment war# recommended for ircl'jsion in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory, Of the new
(actors developed, all were given a low confidence rating of E except for human breath and
cigarette smoking which were given ratings of D and I, respectively. Appendix A explains the basis
for the assignment of emission factor ratings
A valid emiss'jn factor (or forest fires could not be developed due to a lack ol relevant data.
However, ammonia is rarely idenlilied as an emission pollutant in forest lire emissions inventories
Although the emissions factor would likely be low, total ammonia emissions from forest fires could
still be significant because of the vast amount of tores! land burned each year. Deriving an
accurate factor lor forest fires could therefore be important in developing a complete ammonia
emissions inventory.
The selection of the best available set of ammonia emission factors for inclusion in the 1985
NAPAP Emissions Inventory was based on a comparison of ammonia emission factors developed
for inventories sponsored by NAPAP, EPS, EPRl, and NASA. This comparison was based on ihe
same basic criteria used to rate the NAPAP factors (see Appendix A). After ihorough a valuation,
the NAPAP factors were determined the most accurate for a!! source categories. In many instances,
the factors developed in the other inventories were close to or idenk'aal to the NAPAP factors. In
other cases, when the factors developed were widely divergent, the data for the NAPAP factors
were found to be the most accurate, current, and representative data available. Table 4-1
summarizes the emission (actors chosen, their ratings, and the resulting 1985 emissions estimates-
Emission factors are presented lor the categories; cigarette smoking, human breath and human
perspiration. Emission factors ol zero are lecommended lor wildlife categories. Emissions for these
categories were not "ncluded in Ihe 1985 NAPAP Emissions inventory however, due to the lack of
activity data, high uncertainty in the emips;ons factors, or because the emissions based on 1980
activity data were insignificant. Information derived from animal studies in confined settings and
28
-------
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF AMMONIA EMISSION FACTORS CHOSEN FOR THE 1985 NAPAP EMISSIONS INVENTORY
*0
Source
Emission
factor
(lb emitted/
unit)*
Livestock Wastes
Beef Cattle Feedlots
Cropland Spreading
beef cattle
dairy cows
swine
sheep
laying hens
broi'ers
turkeys
Combustion Sources
Coal
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
utility boilers
industrial boilers
commercial boilers
Mobile Sources
Gasnline
leaded gasoline
unleaded gasoline
Diesel
Ammonium Nitrate Manufacture
Nsutralizer
granulator
high density prilling
Activity
rat©1"
Units
19S5
Emissions
(tons/yr)'
Pol 111
source
sec"
Area
source
sec
Emission
factor
rating*
13
2.3x10'
animals
151,549
3-02-020-02
77
E
1.7
6.5x10s
animals
5,541
f
71
E
27
4.5x10s
animals
60,736
f
72
E
4.3
4.9x10'
animals
105,457
f
73
E
1.9
1.9x10*
animals
1,809
f
70
E
0.34
2.9x10s
animals
49,839
f
75
E
0.043
5.0x10*
animals
10,781
f
74
E
0.2S
3.9x10'
animals
5,579
f
69
E
0.00056
8.4x10*
ions coal
235
g
g
E
0.8
3.4x10'
10* gallons fuel
13,563
h
h
E
3.2
3.5x10*
10® ft3 gas
5,703
1 -01 -006-xx
NA
C
3,2
1,1x10'
10s ft3 gas
17,788
1 -02-006-xx
18.98
C
0,49
7.3x10fi
10* ft3 gas
1,800
1-03-006-xx
5,11
C
f
27*39
0,42
5.3x10'
103 gallons fuel
11,168
f
f
D
0,63
5.9x10'
to1 gallons fuel
18,646
f
}
D
0,95
2.8x107
10* gallons fuel
13,206
f
40-44
E
18'
1.9x10*
tons produced
17,818
3 01-027-04
f
D
18'
2.4X108
tons produced
21,820
3-01-027-11
f
D
(continued)
-------
Source
Emission
factor
(lb emitted/
unit)*
low density polling
Solids formation
evapo -ation/concentration
high density
low density
high density prill
towers
low density prill
towers
rotary drum
granulators
high density prill
coolers
low density prill
coolers
tow density prill
dryers
granuiator coolers
Anhydrous Ammonia Fertilizer
Application
Petroleum Refineries
FCC units
TCC units
Reciprocating engine
compressors
18'
17
17
57,2
0.26
59,4
0,04
0,30
1.6'
1
19
54
6
0.2
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
1985 Point Area Emission
Activity Emissions source source factor
rate* Units (tons/yrf SCC4 SCC rating*
9,0x10s
tons produced
8,080
3-01-027-21 f
O
5,8x10s
tons produced
4,905
3-01-027-f 7 f
D
3.2x10*
ions produced
2,726
3-01-027-27 f
D
2.4x10s
tons produced
68,244
3-01-027-12
A
6.4x10s
tons produced
83
3-01-027-22 1
A
1.4x10s
tons produced
4,011
3-01-027-07 t
D
7,2x10s
Ions produced
16
3-01-027-14 !
A
0
tons produced
0
3-02-027-23 1
A
1.5x10s
tons produced
116
3-01-027-25 1
D
0
tons produced
0
3-10-027-06 1
D
5.4x10*
ions fertilizer
50,988
f 76
C
1 6x10s
103 carrels
42,793
3-06-002-01 1
B
1 7X104
1G3 barrels
52
3-06-003-01 f
B
10' ft* gas burned
f
1 f
B
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued}
Emission , _ ,
factor 1985 Point Area Emission
(lb emitted/ Activity Emissions source source factor
Source unit)* rate" Units (ions/yr)* SCC SCC? rating
Ammonia Synthesis
Carbon dioxide
regeneration
Condensate stripping
Loading and storage
Urea Manufacture
Solution formation^
concentration
Solids formation
nonflutdized bed
prilling
agricultural grade
fluid ized bed prilling
agricultural grade
feed grade
drum granulation
.oiary drum cooler
Coke Manufacture
Oven charging
Door leaks
Coke pushing
Quenching (contaminated
water)
Ammonium Phosphate
Manufacture
2.0
2.2
40
18-2
4,9*10®
3 1x10s
0
4.8x10s
tons produced
tons produced
tons produced
tons produced
4,896
3,464
0
3-01-003-08
3-01-003-09
3-01-001-99
44,122 3-01-040-02
A
A
E
0-87
0
ions produced
0
3-01-040-03 f
A
2.9
4.1
2.2
0.0051
5.2x10s
1.0x10*
2.6x10s
4.1x10s
tons produced
tons produced
tons produced
tons produced
749
21
2,897
0.1
3-01-040-10 f
3-01-040-11 f
3-01-040-04 1
3-01-040-12 f
A
A
A
A
0.02
0.06
0.1
3.6x10'
2.1 x107
2.7x10'
tons coal charged
tons coal charged
tons coal charged
358
645
1,364
3-03-003-02 1
3-03-003-08 f
3-03-003-03 f
D
O
D
0.28
2.5x107
tons coal charged
3,525
3-03-003-04 1
D
-3.14
8.2x10s
tons PzO, produced
571
3-01-030-02 f
A
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Ui
Source
Emission
factor
(lb emitted;
unltf
Activity
rate"
Units
tsss
Emissions
(tons/yr)*
Point
source
see-
Area
soure#
sec
Emission
factor
rating*
Range Animal Excrement
Beef Cattle
Dairy Cattle
Swine
Sheep
Wastewater Treatment
44.4
45.0
39.0
4.5
19
2.6x1
4.9x10*
4.8x10®
1.0X107
8.2x10*
unconfined pop
unconfined pop
unconfined pop
unconfined pop
10* gallons
578.890
109,725
94,593
22,606
77,762
f
f
f
f
5-01-007-01
71
72
73
70
100
E
E
E
E
E
Wildlife Excrement"
Big Game
carnivores
herbivores
Birds
Cigarette Smoking'
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
f
f
f
y.bxio'
kg animal
kg animal
kg animal
10* smoke re
t
f
f
68
f
t
f
f
f
f
f
*
E
E
E
C
Human Breath
Smokers
Non-smokers
Human Perspiration'
9.1
12.0
0.55
7,5x107
1.5x10"
2.3x10'
10a smokers 340
10s non-smokers 911
person 60,000
f
f
f
I
f
f
n
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
'Emissions totals do not include 44,218 tons from minor point source process emissions; area source category 99.
"Refers to SCCs that were in the 1985 NAPAP Emission Inventory.
•See Appendix A and this report for ratings.
1 Not available.
'Includes SCCs 1-01-001-xx through 1-01-003-xx, 1-02-001-xx through 1-02-003-xx, 1-03-001-xx through 1-03-003-xx, 1-05-001-02, and
1-05-002-02; and area source categories 14 and 96.
Includes SCus 1-01-004-xx through 1-O1-O05xxx, 1-02-004xx through 1-02-005-xx, 1-03-004-xx through 1-Q3-005«, 1-05-001-05, and
1-05-002-05; and area source categories 3, 4, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 97.
'Emission factor is from mid-point of range reported in AP-42.
'Rating is icwer than that reported in AP-42 because of the listing of a single factor rather than a range (as in AP-42).
"Emission factors as hiqh as 1.6 lb/Kg animal for carr.ivores, 0.14 lb/kg animal for herbivores and 1.3 lb/kg for birds were
developed These emission factors were based on research results that were not representative of the wilderness environment.
Other NAPAP research results based on direct ammonia measurements in the wilderness environment support the zero emission
factor assumptions presented in Table 1.
'Emission factors are presented but emissions were not included in the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory.
-------
from studies of domestic animal production, which could be used to represent emission factors lor
wildlife categories, is discussed in this report. Emission faclors based on these studies are nol
representative of conditions in the wilderness environment, arid are, therefore, unreliable for
application to wildlife categories, In Ihe case of ammonia emissions from wildlife sources, additional
NAPAP research, thai is in preparation for publication, suggests that ammonia emissions from
wildlife sources are reabsorbed into the biomass in the natural setting. These results suggest that
regardless of the emission factors or emission rates the net release ol ammot. a to the atmosphere
is zero. Ciearly, further research is needed to resolve the issues related to Ihe potential
contributions of wildlife sources to Ihe emissions of ammonia.
Total ammonia emissions for 1985, calculated using the emission factors chosen lor ihe
1985 NAPAP Inventory, are ranksd below by source calegory.
1985 Emissions Percent ol Total
Source Category (tons) Calculated Emissions
Range Animal Excrement
805,816
47.8
Livestock Waste Mngml.
391,293
23.2
Ammonium Nitrate Man.
127,826
7,6
Wastewater Treatment
77,762
4.6
Anhydrous Ammonia Appl,
50,908
3.0
Urea Manufacture
47,790
2.8
Mobile Sources
43,020
2.6
Petroleum Refining
42,845
2.6
Combustion
39,090
2,3
Ammonia Synthesis
8,360
0.5
Coke Manufacture
5,894
0.3
Ammonium Fhosphale Man.
571
negligible
Minor Point Sources
44,218
" 2,6
Total
1,685,473
100
Forty night percent of Ihe ammonia emissions calculated for 1980 were due to range animal
wastes. The next largest source categories were livestock waste management, ammonium nitrate
manufacture, and wastewater treatment. These top four sources contributed 03 percent of the
emissions calculated lor 1985.
it must be stressed that these ammonia emissions totals and rankings are estimates based
largely on unverified lest results. Emissions from the largest sources were based on factors wilh
low confidence ratings, and emissions totals for a potentially large source, wildlife excrement, were
assumed to be zero. The assumption of zero emissions from wildlife excrement is consistent with
other NAPAP research resulls. The polential ammonia emissions from wildlife excrement in other
studies are based on research resulls which conflict with NAPAP research resulls. Any estimates
of ammonia emissions from wildlife sources are bar e l on unreliable emission factors and aclivily
data.
34
-------
The low confidence ratings associated with factors tor many ol the largest ammonia
emissions sources illustrate the lack ol accurate ammonia emissions data lor many significant source
categories. For many sources, the estimation ol ammonia h complicated by the infraction ol
several variables affecting emissions. For example, ammonia emissions from livestock wast® varies
significantly with manure type, management practice, and atmospheric conditions and are, therefore,
difficult to quantify.
The development j! a complete and accurate ammonia emissions inventory will require the
development of a reliable and more comprehensive set of emission factors and aclivily rate data
for the following source categories
livestock waste management
range animal excrement
wastewater treatment
forest fires
wildlife excrement
human perspiration and breath
mobile sources
• coal and fuel oil combustion
coke manufacture
35
-------
REFERENCES
1, Misenheimer, D.C., T.E. Warr, S. Zelmanowitz Ammonia Emission Factors for the NAPAP
Emission Inventory. EP.v-400 7-87-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, 1987
2, National inventory of Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Emissions of Ammonia (1980),
Environmenlal Proleclion Service, Environment Canada, February 1985,
3, Noisier, S.L, H. Collins, J. Colims, P. Hayden, F. Lurmann, T. Yeransian, J, Young, Interim
Emissions Inventory tor Regional Air Quality Studies, EA-6070, Research Project 1330-23,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alio, Calilornia, November 1988.
A. Harriss, R.C. and J,T, Michaels (NASA), Sources of Atmospheric Ammonia, Proceedings
Second Symposium, Composition of the Nonurban Troposphere, American leteorological
Society, Williamsburg, Virginia, May 1982.
5. Langford, A.O. and F.C. FehsenfekJ. The Role of Natural Systems as Screes or Sinks of
Atmospheric Ammonia, Presented al the NAPAP ^SO international Conference on Acidic
Deposition: State ol Science and Technology, Hilton Head Island, Soulh Carolina,
February 11-16, 1990.
6. Robbins, J.W.D, Environmental impact Resulting from Unconlined Animal Production.
EPA-600/2-78-046 (NTIS PB 280 373), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada,
Oklahoma, February 1978,
7. Sweeten, J.M. and D.L, Reddeil. Nonpoint Sources: State-ofthe-Art Overview, Presented
at American Society ol Agricultural Engineers, Winter Meeting, Chicago, December 14-17,
1976.
8- Weslerman, P.W , L M. Salley, Jr., J.C. Barker, and G.M. Chescheir, III, Available Nutrients
in Livestock Waste. Journal of the North Carolina Research Service, Raleigh, North
Carolina, Paper No. 9998, 1985, 15 pp,
9 Overcash, M.R., F J. Humerik, and J.R. Miner. Livestock Waste Management: Volume I.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1983.
10, Lauer, DA, D.R. Bouldin, and S.D. Klausner. Ammonia Volatilization from Dairy Manure
Spread on the Soil Surface. Journal of Environmental Quality, 5:134-141, 1976.
11. Holt, J.D , D.W. Nelson, and A.L. Sutton. Ammonia Volatilization from Liquid Swine Manure
Applied to Cropland, Journal of Environmenlal Quality, 10:90-94, 1381.
12, Gclley, F 0., G A. Petrides, E.L. Rauber, and J.H, Jenkins. Food Intake and Assimilation
by Bobcats Under Laboratory Conditions, Journal of Wiidlite Management, 29(3) 442-447,
1965.
13. Loehr, R.C. Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes ¦- A Forward Oriented View. NTIS
PB204218, Robert S Kerr Water Research Center, Ada, Oklahoma, July 1968. 148 pp,
36
-------
14. Wholers, H.C. and G.B, Bell, Literature Review of Metropolitan Air Pollutant Concentrations
- Preparation, Sampling and Assay of Synthetic Atmospheres. Stantord Research Institute,
Menlo Park, Calilornia, 1956.
15. Newsome, J R., V. Norman, anc* C.H. Keith. Vapor Phase Analysis of Tobacco Smoke.
Tobacco Science. Februa*y 1942, pp, 102-111.
16. Sloan, C H. and G.P. Merie. Determination of Ammonia in Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke
with an Ammonia Electrode, Analytica Chimiea Acta, 69:243-247, 1974.
17. U.S. Statistical Abstracts. U.S. Bureau of Census, 1985.
18. Neledov. Y.G., V P. Savina, NI L. Sokolov, and V.E. RyzhKova, Investigation of Human
Expired Air for Contaminants. Kos micheskaya Biologiya i Meditsina, 3(5):71 -77, September
1969.
19. Altman, P.L. and D S. Dittmer. Metabolism. Federation ot American Societies tor
Experimental Biology, Bethesda, MD. 1968.
20. Hea'y, T V., H.A.C. McKay, A. Pilbeam, and D. Scargill. Ammonia and Ammonium Sulfate
in the Troposphere Over the United Kingdom. Journal ol Geophysical Research.
75(12):2317-2321. 1970.
21. Technical Tables to the 1984 Needs Survey Report to Congress: Assessment of Needed
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the United States. EPA-430/9-84-011
(NTIS PB85-172682), U.S. Environmental Prate Jon Agency, Oltice ol Municipal Pollution
Control, Washington, DC, February 1985.
22. Melcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal Reuse. McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, New York, 1979. 920 pp.
23. Huang, J.Y. C., S J. Anderson, and K.V. Gabbita. Nitrogen Removal at Milwaukee. Effluent
and Water Treatment Journal, 24(4):143-153, April 1984.
24. Lee, Sang-Em and Hussein Naimie. The Mechanism of Ammonia Removal In a
Single-Stage Nitrification System Having Long HRT. in; Proceedings of the 39th Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, May 8, 9 & 10, 1984. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham,
Massachusetts, 1985- pp 811-820.
25. Adriano, D.C., A.C. Chang, and R. Sharpless. Nitrogen Loss from Manure as influenced
by Moisture and Temperature. Journal of Environmental Quality, 3(3):258-261, 1974.
28. Giddens, J. and A.M. Rao. Effect of Incubation and Contact with Soil on Microbial and
Nitrogen Changes in Poultry Manure. Journal ot Environmental Quality. 4(2):275-278,1975.
27. Van Dyne, D.L. and G.B. Gilbertson. Estimating U.S. Livestock and Poultry Manure and
Nutrient Production. ESCS-12, U.S. Department ot Agriculture, Washington, DC, 1978. 145
pp.
28. Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 97tli Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1976.
pp. 670-673.
29. Denmead, O.T., J.R, Freney, and J.R, Simpson. A Closed Ammonia Cycle Within Plant
Canopy, Soil Biol. Biochem. 8:161-164, 1976.
30. Miner, J.R. Production and Transport of Gaseous NH3 and H,S Associated with Livestock
Production. Ada, Oklahoma, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency document
EPA-600/2-76-239 (NTIS PB 263908), 1976.
37
-------
31. Sonderlund, R. Nitrogen Oxide Pollutants and Ammonia Emissions - A Mass Balance Over
Northwest Europe. Ambio. 6:118-122,1377.
32. Muzto, L.J, and J.K. Arand, Homogenous Gas Phase Decomposition of Oxioes of Nitrogen,
Electric Power Reseatch Institute, 1976, pp. 60-61, C-12,
33. Hill, W.H. Chemistry of Coal Utilization. Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 1945.
p. 1008.
34. Bauer, C.F. and A.W. Andren, Emissions of Vapor-Phase Fluorine and Ammonia from the
Colombia Coal-Fired Power Plant. Environmental Science and Technology,
19(11): 1009-T103, 1985.
35. Chen, S.L., D.W. Pershing, and M.P. Heap. Bench-Scale Evaluation of Non-U.S, Coals for
NO, Formation Under Excess Air and Staged Combustion Conditions. EPA-600/7-83-025
(NTIS Pi 83-196014), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Parte, NC,
April 1983.
36. Hovey. H.H., A. Rismon, and J.F. Cunnan. The Development of Air Contaminant Emission
Tables for Nonprocess Emissions. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
16(7):362-366, July 1966.
37. Ammonia. National Research Council, National Academy ol Sciences, Washington, DC,
1979.
38. Cass, G.R., ®t al. The Origin of Ammonia Emissions to the Atmosphere in an Urban Area.
Environmental Quality Laboratory, California Institute ol Technology, Pasadena, Caiilornia,
19P2,
39. Henein, Naeim A. The Diesel as an Alternative Automobile Engine. Wayne State
University, SAE Paper 750931, 1975. pp. 4-6.
40. Gentel, J.E., C.J, Manary, and J.C. Valanta. Characterization of Particulates and Other
Non-Regulated Emissions from Mobile Sources and the Effects of Exhaust Emissions Control
Devices on These Emissions, EPA/APTD-1567 (NTIS PB2242.43), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973, pp. 81-85, 106.
41. Harkins, J,H. ar-j S,W. Kicksic. Ammonia in Auto Exhaust. Environmental Science and
Technology, 1(6 751-2, 1967.
42. Cadle, S.H. and P.A. Mulawa. Low Molecular Weight Aliphatic Amines in Exhaust from
Catalyst-Equipped Cars. Environmental Science and Technology, 14(6) :721, 1980.
43. Ammonium Nitrate, In; Compilation ot Air Pollution Emission Factors, 3rd Ed. Supp. 13,
AP-42 (NTIS PB 83-126557), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1982.
44. Ammonium Nitrate, 'n: Compilation ol Air Pollution Emission Factors, 3rd Ed. Supp, 15,
AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
January 1984, pp.6.8-1 to 6.8-8.
45. Synthetic Ammonia. In. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, 3rd Ed, Supp. 14,
AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May
1983, p. 5.2-1,
46. Walkup, H.G, and J.L, Nevins. The Cost of Doing Business in Agricultural Ammonia for
Direct Application. Agricultural Ammonia News. November-December 1966.
38
-------
47. Synthetic Ammonia. In: Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, 3rd Ed. Supp. 13,
AP-42 (NTIS PB 83-126557). U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Part*, North Carolina, August 19B2,
48. Urea. In; Compilation ot Air Pollution Emission Factors, 3rd Ed Supp. 13, AP-42 (NTIS
PB 83-126557). U.S. Environmental Prelection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, August 1902.
49. Urea. In: Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, 3rd Ed, Supp, 15, AP-42. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, January 1984.
pp.6.14-2 to 6.14-5.
50. Ammonium Phosphates. In: Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, 3rd Ed. Supp.
11, AP-42 (NTIS PB 81-178014), U.S. Environmental Proteclion Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, Ociober 1980, p. 6.10,3-1.
51. Denmead, OT, J.R, Simpson, and J.R. Freney. 4 Direct Field Measurement of Ammonia
Emission After Injection of Anhydrous Ammonia. Soil-Sciences Society of America Journal,
41:1001-1004, 1977.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, impact of New Source Performance Standards on
1985 h'ntbmi emissions from Stationary Sources- EPA-450/3-76-017 (NTIS PB 80-
194657), April 1977.
53. Masser, C.C, Petroleum Refining. In: Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, 3rd
Ed. AP 42 (NTIS PB 275525), U.S. Environmental Proteclion Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, December 1977 pp. 9.1-2 to 9.1-9.
54. Coke Manufac. ,,ng. In: Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, 3rd Ed. Supp. 11,
AP-42 (NTIS PB 81-178014). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, Ociober 1980. p. 7,2-1.
55. Air Pollution by Coking Plants. United Nat.ons, New York, 1968- pp. 14-19,
56. Griffin, H.F., et al. Characterization Program for Coke Quench Tower Emissions. In:
Proceedings-Control of Air Emissions from Coke Plants, Air Pollution Control Association,
April 1979. pp. 128 and 136.
57. Kuppart, L , R E. Johnson, and B.A. Hertig, Ammonia: A Normal Constituent of Expired
Air During Rest and Exercise. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
60lh Annual Meeting, Anaheim, California, April 11-16, 1976. Federation Proceedings, 35,
1499.
39
-------
APPENDIX A
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING EMISSION FACTORS
This appendix describes the criteria lhat were used to assess the quality of the ammonia
emission lactors presented in Section 3- The purpose ol the ratings is to provide a qualitative
indication ol the reliability ol the emission lactors. Criteria used to assess the emission factors are
listed below.
DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA
Test methods used: Most emission facrors are determined from either source tests, industry
surveys, mass balances, or engineering estimates* The accuracy ol these methods depends on
several different parameters which change from one emission source to another.
* Source Tests; In source testing, samples are taken directly from the source emitting the
pollutant. Accurals approved test methods should have been used whenever possible. It an
unapproved method or an outdated method was used, the quality of the emission factor should
be questioned.
* Industry Survey: In a survey. EPA submits a series of questions to a plant or site that is
emitting the pollutant in question. The plant cr site personnel voluntarily till out and return the
questionnaire to Ihe surveyor. To obtain accurate information, the questions must be worded
carefully so that the correct and desired Inlormation will be given. If consistent results are
reported by the participants, the information may be considered accurate. To etfectively assess
ihe quality o' an amission factor, the survey methodology should be known.
¦ Engineering Estimate: An engineering estimate is based on process Inlormation available to
the engineer. The engineer makes several assumptions based on his experience and knowledge
of the process. Using these assumptions and other available information, he estimates an
emission factor. This method ol determining an emission (actor is geneialty the most inaccurate,
However, with adequate background information, an accurate estimate can frequently be made.
Size ol Database: The emission factor becomes increasingly accurate as the database from which
the factor was determined expands. Emission factors constructed on information Irom one source
have less credibility than those from several sources.
Database Represents a Good Cross Section of Industry: An average emission factor should
be determine^ from a cross section of the industry. A good cross section is related to the size ol
the database. However, a large database does not ensure a good cross section, and an excellent
cross section is possible 'rom a small database,
Age of Data: Some emission lactors quickly lose credibility for the following reasons.
« The sampling and testing methods may have been proven invalid, and as better methods are
developed, inherent flaws in previously used methods are discovered,
A-1
-------
Tech no logical innovations occur in most industries on a regular basis. Consequently, the
process parameters used when the emission tests were performed may differ significantly
Irom those currently used in the Industry. Conircl systems may be mora efficieni, fuel feed
and production rales may differ, the composition of pollutants may be significantly different,
elc. As a result, the old emission factor may no longer apply.
» New laws and regulations may be passed which would significantly alfect the emissions from
a source.
RATING SYSTEM
A raling system, analogous to the AP-42 system, was developed to grade each emission
factor. Due to the variability in the type of information in the reference i'sed to assign emission
factors, a good deal of subjective engineering Judgment was used in giving each factor a grade.
Emission factors for each process were given a raling of A through E, with the A rating
•spr^oenting the more reliable emission (actor and the E rating a less reliable rating.
A qualitative description of each rating is listed below;
A Rating
Large database from surveys or source tests on several different studies was used.
Database covers a cross section of the Industry.
Emissions were measured using currently valid test methods.
» Emission factors were determined by mass balance based on sound measurement.
B Rating
Database is fairly large; however, it is not clear that it represents a good cross section of the
industry.
Emission factor was measured using valid test methods at the time the test was performed,
However, lests have since been revised.
Engineering estimafe based on sound, accurate informalton.
C Rating
Database consists of a few good sources.
Data may or may not be representative of the industry.
Engineering estimates based on accurate information, However, information is not extensive
or complete.
D Rating
* Database is small- If one sample, it was a representative site,
* Database may not be representative of industry.
A-2
-------
* Unapproved test methods may have been used.
Engineering estimates are based on iniormalion where accuracy Is questionable.
E Rating
Database Is small. Results conflict with each other,
« Any sources tested are not representative of the industry .
Engineering estimates are based on very iitlle reliable information,
The above ratings are referred to throughout section 3 in the discussion of specific emission
factors.
A-3
------- |