Field Survey on Concentration and Emission of Dust in Different Types of Poultry Houses of South Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is of great interest to readers due to air quality and airborne diseases (e.g. influenza). The presentation of data must be improved before publication.
- Data presented in Section 3.1 (lines 18 to 22) refer to mean concentrations of respirable dust with large errors (e.g. 1.99 +/- 2.07), and a description is necessary about the significance of these numbers, and a comparison to error bars reported in the literature. For example, compare to errors bars referred to values in references 24 to 28 listed (Table 5).
- Figures 1 and 2 - expand description of data in the Figure Caption and explain how error bars are determined.
- Page 5, lines 10 to 12, explain how values for total and respirable dust were determined and guide the readers to how numbers were calculated through an example (e.g. explain how values of 2.07~6.38 mg/m3 were determined), and refer to Tables and Figures in the article.
- Data in Section 3.2 lines 13 and 20, also refer to large errors, and an explanation is necessary similar to the above #1.
- Page 8 lines 13 to 17 - expand this short paragraph and clarify about data on emission rate of total and respirable dust from the broiler house located in the United States. For example, how did the authors of reference 27 explain their data of 0.58‒99 g h-1?
- Table 4 – provide larger gaps between columns to separate the numbers, as it is difficult to distinguish the numbers listed next to each other.
- Conclusion – needs expanding. For example, when referring to “Among types of poultry house, the broiler house showed the highest levels of indoor concentration”, list the values and emphasize the high levels. Also, the last sentence requires further clarification.
Author Response
- Data presented in Section 3.1 (lines 18 to 22) refer to mean concentrations of respirable dust with large errors (e.g. 1.99 +/- 2.07), and a description is necessary about the significance of these numbers, and a comparison to error bars reported in the literature. For example, compare to errors bars referred to values in references 24 to 28 listed (Table 5).
☞ Two sentences regarding comparison of respirable dust in this study and previous foreign studies were added according to your comment. Please refer to the sentences, "The level of total dust ... from previous foreign studies".
- Figures 1 and 2 - expand description of data in the Figure Caption and explain how error bars are determined.
☞ The description regarding error bars was included to the Figure Caption according to your comment. Please refer to the sentence, "The error bar ... the measurement data)
- Page 5, lines 10 to 12, explain how values for total and respirable dust were determined and guide the readers to how numbers were calculated through an example (e.g. explain how values of 2.07~6.38 mg/m3 were determined), and refer to Tables and Figures in the article.
☞ In order to perform statistical analysis, the measured data must appear as a normal distribution. The data obtained from this study showed a logarithmic normal distribution and the representative values were presented as the geometric mean. However, the data presented in lines 10 to 12 on page 5 by my mistake shows the range of actual measurements. Therefore, since the readers may be confused, the geometric mean and the geometric standard deviation shown in the table are corrected. Please refer to the revised sentence, "The geometric mean ... in winter, respectively".
- Data in Section 3.2 lines 13 and 20, also refer to large errors, and an explanation is necessary similar to the above #1.
☞ The description regarding error bars was included to the Figure Caption according to your comment. Please refer to the sentence, "The error bar ... the measurement data)
- Page 8 lines 13 to 17 - expand this short paragraph and clarify about data on emission rate of total and respirable dust from the broiler house located in the United States. For example, how did the authors of reference 27 explain their data of 0.58‒99 g h-1?
☞ Another sentence to clarify about data reported from the reference 27 was added according to your opinion. Please refer to the sentence, "Moreover, this value ... dust per hour".
- Table 4 – provide larger gaps between columns to separate the numbers, as it is difficult to distinguish the numbers listed next to each other.
☞ We are sorry, but we did not understand your comment accurately.
- Conclusion – needs expanding. For example, when referring to “Among types of poultry house, the broiler house showed the highest levels of indoor concentration”, list the values and emphasize the high levels. Also, the last sentence requires further clarification.
☞ According to your opinion, the value of broiler house was listed to emphasize the high levels. Additionally, the last sentence was revised for further clarification. Please refer to the last sentence, "These field results ... each poultry house".
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript evaluates the emission and concentration of dust in different types of poultry houses of South Korea. I read carefully the article presented to me, and I found, that the topic of the paper might be interesting, however at present, the article may only be of interest to local audience. In general, the article is written correctly, but contains several language errors and a lot of defficiences in the presentation of results. Poor quality of charts and tables (some due to editing errors are cutted), which preclude proper evaluation. After that, not all signatures may be clear (e.g. head-1), (m-2). The article also has some statistical errors (no Levene's test, lack of italics in statistical abbreviations, unjustified juggling with geometric and arithmetic means).
Indeed, this research would be very important if you try to implement any innovation or remedial action even in smaller scale. Manuscript could also refer more to the world situation. Unfortunately,none of this things have been reported in text. I would like to point out that this methodology is neither innovative nor new. Similar studies were conducted around the world and were mainly published in local publications. This means that the article may be of interest only to a small audience. South Korea is not a significant poultry producer (it is roughly 20th in the world in broiler production), and its industry is mainly based on imports. That is why I believe that these results cannot be implanted in research conducted in other countries. In addition, these studies would be extremely important for animal welfare studies, but this topic is also omitted in this article.
Finally, it is worth adding some information about the consent of poultry farms owners to the publication of the results
However, I believe that this research and the results obtained are valuable to the local scientific community and will be effectively published in a more local journal
Author Response
The manuscript evaluates the emission and concentration of dust in different types of poultry houses of South Korea. I read carefully the article presented to me, and I found, that the topic of the paper might be interesting, however at present, the article may only be of interest to local audience. In general, the article is written correctly, but contains several language errors and a lot of defficiences in the presentation of results.
☞ According to your comment, I revised the several language errors. Thank you for your good comments.
Poor quality of charts and tables (some due to editing errors are cutted), which preclude proper evaluation. After that, not all signatures may be clear (e.g. head-1), (m-2). The article also has some statistical errors (no Levene's test, lack of italics in statistical abbreviations, unjustified juggling with geometric and arithmetic means).
☞ According to your comment, I revised the charts and tables.
Indeed, this research would be very important if you try to implement any innovation or remedial action even in smaller scale.
☞ According to your comment, I added two sentences of this research purpose for improve the poultry industry in Korea.
South Korea is not a significant poultry producer (it is roughly 20th in the world in broiler production), and its industry is mainly based on imports. That is why I believe that these results cannot be implanted in research conducted in other countries.
☞ I agree with your comments. USDA report, In 2019, Korea’s chicken production is projected to increase about 2.4 percent to 932,000 metric tons(MT) from 910,000 MT in 2018. Also, In 2019, Korea’s chicken imports are projected to increase three percent to 145,000 MT from 140,000 MT in 2018.
Although Korea’s poultry industry is ranked 20th in the world, it is rapidly developing into an important animal industry in the animal production sector without relying on imports.
In addition, these studies would be extremely important for animal welfare studies, but this topic is also omitted in this article.
☞ Thank you for your good comments, In response to your comments, I revised by adding references to animal welfare.
Finally, it is worth adding some information about the consent of poultry farms owners to the publication of the results
☞ Thank you for good suggestion. As you can see from the addition to the introduction section,
The Korean government has announced plans to strengthen environmental management and regulations on poultry farms, and livestock farmers are preparing for such plans.
However, I believe that this research and the results obtained are valuable to the local scientific community and will be effectively published in a more local journal
☞ Thank you for your interesting in my manuscript and good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General Overview:
This article generated and analyzed dust emission data from 27 poultry houses in South Korea. It has set up a good foundation for emission inventory in this certain district for references and future studies. Please address these concerns above as well as the general statements and questions I give below as I believe that this research is of importance to the field.
General Statements:
Abstract
In general, the abstract is easy to follow. It stated the significance, objective, and the results of this study. However, it would make the objective more persuasive by adding one or two sentences of background about the current deficient poultry emission research/study in this area, thus, it is important to conduct this research.
Introduction:
Page 1 Line 37-39: Air pollutants emitted from poultry house can cause severe cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as air quality decrease, living environment condition degradation. Contributing to global warming would be one negative impact from the poultry houses, while there are more direct impacts to the atmospheric environment and public health that should be mentioned here. It has been mentioned later in Page 2 line 6-10. Revisiting the same topic (negative impact of poultry emissions) in another paragraph is causing a little confusion. The author might want to consider re-organize the introduction and have a better flow.
Page2 Line 11-15: This paragraph is important for the introduction. It shows the importance of this research, and emerging impact this article can make. Just a comment here, no editing needed. The author can mention this point in the abstract as well.
Page2 Line16: Rarely paragraph starts with ‘Thus’, use ‘Therefore’ or ‘Consequently’.
In general, this introduction is good length, precise, and easy to ready.
Materials and methods:
Table 1. The table is not fully shown in the document.
Page3 Line4, What was measured? The subject in the first sentence at the beginning of the paragraph is unclear.
The glass fiber has 0.8um pore size, will that neglect particulate matter smaller than that size? Is this portion of PM can be neglected statistically?
Page3 Line 17-18: Why was the center location concentration of the poultry house chosen for this emission rate calculation? Instead of the concentration close to the ventilation fan?
Page3 Line 12-13: What’s the difference between total dust and respirable dust? How do two different flow rates can differentiate these two types of dusts? Please give a clear definition of these two types of dusts, and explain how different flow rates can collect them correspond?
Page3 Line 26: It’s totally fine to assume the weight of a chicken, however, does this chicken weight match the broiler manual weekly weight recommendation for specific sampling week?
Page4 Line 12: Please list the statistical program name, company and version used in this study.
Results and discussions:
Page4 Line 15-17, it’s hard to follow, please re-write the sentence.
Figure 1: There is not marker/label to show which column represent which poultry house type.
Page 5Line 4: Please re-write this sentence. Separate into two sentences to enhance the reading experience. Also, it should be “in the case of broiler house”
Table 2, Cannot view the whole table from the document.
Page5 line 16, grammar problem.
Page5 Line 17-20, seasonal ventilation rate differences were mentioned here, any references or data to support this statement?
Page5 Line 22: Typo ‘the’
Page 6 Line 2-9 and Table 3: As stated here, the data showed in Table 3 is not comparable to this study, what is the purpose of presenting this table and paragraph in the main body of this article? Maybe put this into Introduction or Supplementary information section?
Figure 2: Still no labels to indicate poultry house types.
Page 8 Line 16-17: maybe the author wants to emphasize the importance of this research to fulfill the absence of emission data inventory in this area, instead of just stating that the data was not comparable to published ones.
Page9 Line 4-12, it is great that the author listed the limitation here. Please also include any future suggestions for research to avoid or minimize this limitation.
Conclusions:
It is easy enough to read, however, it can use some English editing to make the reading experience better. The graphs need to be edited and mark types of different poultry houses.
It’s assumed that the bedding material is one of the main reasons for dust concentration difference. Is it possible to confirm this assumption via composition analysis? Maybe include this in the future research?
Author Response
Abstract
In general, the abstract is easy to follow. It stated the significance, objective, and the results of this study. However, it would make the objective more persuasive by adding one or two sentences of background about the current deficient poultry emission research/study in this area, thus, it is important to conduct this research.
☞ According to your comment, one sentence about the current deficient emission research related to dust generated from poultry house of South Korea is added to Abstract. Please refer to the sentence, "However, there ... South Korea".
Introduction:
Page 1 Line 37-39: Air pollutants emitted from poultry house can cause severe cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as air quality decrease, living environment condition degradation. Contributing to global warming would be one negative impact from the poultry houses, while there are more direct impacts to the atmospheric environment and public health that should be mentioned here. It has been mentioned later in Page 2 line 6-10. Revisiting the same topic (negative impact of poultry emissions) in another paragraph is causing a little confusion. The author might want to consider re-organize the introduction and have a better flow.
☞ I rearranged the contents into one paragraph including two sentences which you recommend. Please refer to the paragraph, "In terms of ... and public health".
Page2 Line 11-15: This paragraph is important for the introduction. It shows the importance of this research, and emerging impact this article can make. Just a comment here, no editing needed. The author can mention this point in the abstract as well.
☞ According to your comment, I mentioned this point in the abstract as well. Please refer to the sentence, "However, there ... South Korea".
Page2 Line16: Rarely paragraph starts with ‘Thus’, use ‘Therefore’ or ‘Consequently’.
☞ “Thus” was revised to “Therefore”.
In general, this introduction is good length, precise, and easy to ready.
Materials and methods:
Table 1. The table is not fully shown in the document.
☞ Table 1 was modified to be visible in the document
Page3 Line4, What was measured? The subject in the first sentence at the beginning of the paragraph is unclear.
☞ "It", the subject in the first sentence at the beginning of the paragraph, was revised to "The concentration of dust".
The glass fiber has 0.8um pore size, will that neglect particulate matter smaller than that size? Is this portion of PM can be neglected statistically?
☞ Even if the pore size of the glass fiber filter is 0.8um, electrostatic attraction acts to collect particles with a size of 0.8um or less.
Page3 Line 17-18: Why was the center location concentration of the poultry house chosen for this emission rate calculation? Instead of the concentration close to the ventilation fan?
☞ Your opinion is correct. Please refer to added sentence, "Dust concentration measurement ... natural ventilation mode".
Page3 Line 12-13: What’s the difference between total dust and respirable dust? How do two different flow rates can differentiate these two types of dusts? Please give a clear definition of these two types of dusts, and explain how different flow rates can collect them correspond?
☞ I added two sentences to define these two types of dusts according to your opinion. Please refer to the sentences, "The total dust ... the collection equipment".
Page3 Line 26: It’s totally fine to assume the weight of a chicken, however, does this chicken weight match the broiler manual weekly weight recommendation for specific sampling week?
☞ The reason for assuming that the chicken weighs 1.5 kg is based on the feeding standard as the concept of animal unit. The explanation about it is given in the next sentence. Please refer to the sentence, "The rationale for ... of animal unit (AU)".
Page4 Line 12: Please list the statistical program name, company and version used in this study.
☞ The statistical program name, company and version used in this study were added according to your comment.
Results and discussions:
Page4 Line 15-17, it’s hard to follow, please re-write the sentence.
☞ I re-wrote the sentence according to your comment. Please refer to the sentence, "As indicated in ... standard deviation (GSD)".
Figure 1: There is not marker/label to show which column represent which poultry house type.
☞ The figure 1 was corrected to show marker which column represent which poultry house type.
Page5 Line 4: Please re-write this sentence. Separate into two sentences to enhance the reading experience. Also, it should be “in the case of broiler house”
☞ According to your comment, the sentence was separated into two sentences. Please refer to the section, "... as follows. In the case of ...".
Table 2, Cannot view the whole table from the document.
☞ Table 2 was modified to be visible wholly in the document
Page5 line 16, grammar problem.
☞ I modified this sentence to fit the grammar. Please refer to the sentence, "Seasonal difference in ... variable ventilation rate".
Page5 Line 17-20, seasonal ventilation rate differences were mentioned here, any references or data to support this statement?
☞ The data or references supporting this sentence have not been presented here. However, in general the ventilation rate is high in the summer and low in the winter to maintain the proper temperature in the chicken house. Therefore, if the ventilation rate is high, the emission amount of dust increases accordingly. I think I have given enough information on this.
Page5 Line 22: Typo ‘the’
☞ "The" was typed according to your comment.
Page 6 Line 2-9 and Table 3: As stated here, the data showed in Table 3 is not comparable to this study, what is the purpose of presenting this table and paragraph in the main body of this article? Maybe put this into Introduction or Supplementary information section?
☞ The purpose of presenting table 3 is to show that although foreign researches related to dust of poultry house have been reported, differences between data are large due to differences in measurement method and timing, which makes it difficult to objectively compare data obtained from this study. So, I think it would be reasonable to present Table 3 in the Discussion section rather than in the Introduction or Supplementary information section.
Figure 2: Still no labels to indicate poultry house types.
☞ The figure 2 was corrected to show marker which column represent which poultry house type.
Page 8 Line 16-17: maybe the author wants to emphasize the importance of this research to fulfill the absence of emission data inventory in this area, instead of just stating that the data was not comparable to published ones.
☞ Yes, you are right.
Page9 Line 4-12, it is great that the author listed the limitation here. Please also include any future suggestions for research to avoid or minimize this limitation.
☞ The future suggestion was included according to your opinion. Please refer to the sentence, "In order to ... in the future".
Conclusions:
It is easy enough to read, however, it can use some English editing to make the reading experience better. The graphs need to be edited and mark types of different poultry houses.
☞ All of the above were done according to your comment.
It’s assumed that the bedding material is one of the main reasons for dust concentration difference. Is it possible to confirm this assumption via composition analysis? Maybe include this in the future research?
☞ I included what you recommended. Please refer to the sentence, "In addition, dust ... in poultry house".
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved and warrants publication in Atmosphere.
