Comparison of injection approaches for conducting mass recovery tests in open-circuit chamber validation

Brett C. Ramirez, Angela R. Green, Daniel W. Shike, Luis F. Rodriguez, Guilherme D N Maia, Richard S. Gates

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Metabolism and energetics research have contributed to improving and understanding livestock production efficiency and its associated impacts on the environment. Open-circuit respiration chambers are used to calculate an animal's heat production and/or emission rate from a combination of respiratory gas exchange, ventilation rate, temperature, and relative humidity measurements. The whole system must be evaluated before application to assess function, integrity, and identify sources of measurement error through a mass recovery (MR) test, which compares the mass measured by the system to a known mass (reference) injected inside the chamber. The objectives of this work were to compare the calculated MR percent and associated standard uncertainty for four reference injection approaches: (1) mass flow control (MFC) of SF6 (tracer gas; TG) and (2) CH4, (3) gravimetric analysis (GA) of SF6, and (4) MFC of SF6 with a diffuser. Three MR tests were conducted in three chambers each, for every approach. Impact of injection location and time to reach the fresh air exchange steady-state was assessed by addition of the diffuser (approach 4) and was found to be ∼2 min faster than using a single outlet used in MFC of SF6 and CH4. Significant differences for Chamber 1 (P- 0.002) and Chamber 2 (P = 0.02), but not Chamber 3 were found using a one-way ANOVA comparison, which relies on the variance of the measured MR percent, and does not incorporate measurement error. Further, when standard uncertainty was included, no significant differences between injection approaches were found. This was attributed to the large standard uncertainty associated with the injection approaches, ranging from 3.0% to 14.7%. A well-documented example of performing a MR test and associated uncertainty analysis is needed for understanding the impact of equipment selection (e.g. TG concentration, scale resolution and accuracy) and the number of MR test conducted on whole system verification and uncertainty.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationAmerican Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014
PublisherAmerican Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
Pages3181-3192
Number of pages12
Volume5
ISBN (Electronic)9781632668455
StatePublished - 2014
EventAmerican Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014 - Montreal, Canada

Other

OtherAmerican Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014
CountryCanada
CityMontreal
Period7/13/147/16/14

Fingerprint

Uncertainty
Recovery
injection
testing
uncertainty
Flow control
Gases
mass flow
Measurement errors
diffusers
Thermogenesis
Livestock
Humidity
Ventilation
Analysis of Variance
Respiration
Research Design
Air
Equipment and Supplies
Temperature

Keywords

  • Calorimetry
  • Cattle
  • Emissions
  • Methane
  • Uncertainty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Mechanical Engineering

Cite this

Ramirez, B. C., Green, A. R., Shike, D. W., Rodriguez, L. F., Maia, G. D. N., & Gates, R. S. (2014). Comparison of injection approaches for conducting mass recovery tests in open-circuit chamber validation. In American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014 (Vol. 5, pp. 3181-3192). American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.

Comparison of injection approaches for conducting mass recovery tests in open-circuit chamber validation. / Ramirez, Brett C.; Green, Angela R.; Shike, Daniel W.; Rodriguez, Luis F.; Maia, Guilherme D N; Gates, Richard S.

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014. Vol. 5 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2014. p. 3181-3192.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Ramirez, BC, Green, AR, Shike, DW, Rodriguez, LF, Maia, GDN & Gates, RS 2014, Comparison of injection approaches for conducting mass recovery tests in open-circuit chamber validation. in American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014. vol. 5, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, pp. 3181-3192, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014, Montreal, Canada, 13-16 July.
Ramirez BC, Green AR, Shike DW, Rodriguez LF, Maia GDN, Gates RS. Comparison of injection approaches for conducting mass recovery tests in open-circuit chamber validation. In American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014. Vol. 5. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 2014. p. 3181-3192.

Ramirez, Brett C.; Green, Angela R.; Shike, Daniel W.; Rodriguez, Luis F.; Maia, Guilherme D N; Gates, Richard S. / Comparison of injection approaches for conducting mass recovery tests in open-circuit chamber validation.

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014. Vol. 5 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2014. p. 3181-3192.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

@inbook{71e162a1fc104bc2b0a6667eaf97ee3c,
title = "Comparison of injection approaches for conducting mass recovery tests in open-circuit chamber validation",
abstract = "Metabolism and energetics research have contributed to improving and understanding livestock production efficiency and its associated impacts on the environment. Open-circuit respiration chambers are used to calculate an animal's heat production and/or emission rate from a combination of respiratory gas exchange, ventilation rate, temperature, and relative humidity measurements. The whole system must be evaluated before application to assess function, integrity, and identify sources of measurement error through a mass recovery (MR) test, which compares the mass measured by the system to a known mass (reference) injected inside the chamber. The objectives of this work were to compare the calculated MR percent and associated standard uncertainty for four reference injection approaches: (1) mass flow control (MFC) of SF6 (tracer gas; TG) and (2) CH4, (3) gravimetric analysis (GA) of SF6, and (4) MFC of SF6 with a diffuser. Three MR tests were conducted in three chambers each, for every approach. Impact of injection location and time to reach the fresh air exchange steady-state was assessed by addition of the diffuser (approach 4) and was found to be ∼2 min faster than using a single outlet used in MFC of SF6 and CH4. Significant differences for Chamber 1 (P- 0.002) and Chamber 2 (P = 0.02), but not Chamber 3 were found using a one-way ANOVA comparison, which relies on the variance of the measured MR percent, and does not incorporate measurement error. Further, when standard uncertainty was included, no significant differences between injection approaches were found. This was attributed to the large standard uncertainty associated with the injection approaches, ranging from 3.0% to 14.7%. A well-documented example of performing a MR test and associated uncertainty analysis is needed for understanding the impact of equipment selection (e.g. TG concentration, scale resolution and accuracy) and the number of MR test conducted on whole system verification and uncertainty.",
keywords = "Calorimetry, Cattle, Emissions, Methane, Uncertainty",
author = "Ramirez, {Brett C.} and Green, {Angela R.} and Shike, {Daniel W.} and Rodriguez, {Luis F.} and Maia, {Guilherme D N} and Gates, {Richard S.}",
year = "2014",
volume = "5",
pages = "3181--3192",
booktitle = "American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014",
publisher = "American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Comparison of injection approaches for conducting mass recovery tests in open-circuit chamber validation

AU - Ramirez,Brett C.

AU - Green,Angela R.

AU - Shike,Daniel W.

AU - Rodriguez,Luis F.

AU - Maia,Guilherme D N

AU - Gates,Richard S.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Metabolism and energetics research have contributed to improving and understanding livestock production efficiency and its associated impacts on the environment. Open-circuit respiration chambers are used to calculate an animal's heat production and/or emission rate from a combination of respiratory gas exchange, ventilation rate, temperature, and relative humidity measurements. The whole system must be evaluated before application to assess function, integrity, and identify sources of measurement error through a mass recovery (MR) test, which compares the mass measured by the system to a known mass (reference) injected inside the chamber. The objectives of this work were to compare the calculated MR percent and associated standard uncertainty for four reference injection approaches: (1) mass flow control (MFC) of SF6 (tracer gas; TG) and (2) CH4, (3) gravimetric analysis (GA) of SF6, and (4) MFC of SF6 with a diffuser. Three MR tests were conducted in three chambers each, for every approach. Impact of injection location and time to reach the fresh air exchange steady-state was assessed by addition of the diffuser (approach 4) and was found to be ∼2 min faster than using a single outlet used in MFC of SF6 and CH4. Significant differences for Chamber 1 (P- 0.002) and Chamber 2 (P = 0.02), but not Chamber 3 were found using a one-way ANOVA comparison, which relies on the variance of the measured MR percent, and does not incorporate measurement error. Further, when standard uncertainty was included, no significant differences between injection approaches were found. This was attributed to the large standard uncertainty associated with the injection approaches, ranging from 3.0% to 14.7%. A well-documented example of performing a MR test and associated uncertainty analysis is needed for understanding the impact of equipment selection (e.g. TG concentration, scale resolution and accuracy) and the number of MR test conducted on whole system verification and uncertainty.

AB - Metabolism and energetics research have contributed to improving and understanding livestock production efficiency and its associated impacts on the environment. Open-circuit respiration chambers are used to calculate an animal's heat production and/or emission rate from a combination of respiratory gas exchange, ventilation rate, temperature, and relative humidity measurements. The whole system must be evaluated before application to assess function, integrity, and identify sources of measurement error through a mass recovery (MR) test, which compares the mass measured by the system to a known mass (reference) injected inside the chamber. The objectives of this work were to compare the calculated MR percent and associated standard uncertainty for four reference injection approaches: (1) mass flow control (MFC) of SF6 (tracer gas; TG) and (2) CH4, (3) gravimetric analysis (GA) of SF6, and (4) MFC of SF6 with a diffuser. Three MR tests were conducted in three chambers each, for every approach. Impact of injection location and time to reach the fresh air exchange steady-state was assessed by addition of the diffuser (approach 4) and was found to be ∼2 min faster than using a single outlet used in MFC of SF6 and CH4. Significant differences for Chamber 1 (P- 0.002) and Chamber 2 (P = 0.02), but not Chamber 3 were found using a one-way ANOVA comparison, which relies on the variance of the measured MR percent, and does not incorporate measurement error. Further, when standard uncertainty was included, no significant differences between injection approaches were found. This was attributed to the large standard uncertainty associated with the injection approaches, ranging from 3.0% to 14.7%. A well-documented example of performing a MR test and associated uncertainty analysis is needed for understanding the impact of equipment selection (e.g. TG concentration, scale resolution and accuracy) and the number of MR test conducted on whole system verification and uncertainty.

KW - Calorimetry

KW - Cattle

KW - Emissions

KW - Methane

KW - Uncertainty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84911470085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84911470085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

VL - 5

SP - 3181

EP - 3192

BT - American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2014, ASABE 2014

PB - American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers

ER -