Estimation of Ammonia Emission Inventory Using Life Cycle Assessment Based on Livestock Manure Flow: A Case Study of the Manure Management Sector in Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised article provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of ammonia emissions from the livestock industry in Korea. The meticulous approach of recalculating emissions using the UK's life cycle assessment method demonstrates a significant advancement in understanding the true scale of ammonia emissions. Highlighting the discrepancies between official CAPSS estimates and the findings emphasizes the need for improved methodologies in emission estimation. The detailed consideration of different animal types and manure management processes offers a robust framework for future studies. This research is being a valuable contribution to environmental policy and emission management, offering practical solutions to enhance the accuracy and reliability of ammonia emission data in Korea.
Author Response
Thank you for the review.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBrief summary
The manuscript is improved and become much clearer for reader. Below some few comments:
Abstract
Line 23-25: need more editing to differ from line 21
Introduction
- Line 36: write (is) not (should be)
- Line 96-100: clarify
Results and discussion
- Line 210: how it is summed at all stages and it is initial so only for fist stage (housing), clarify
- Line 254: what 59% for?
- Line 268: poultry then dairy
- Line 271-274: revise with figure, don`t match
- Line 294: how similar but figure didn`t show that, revise
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We are resubmitting a manuscript, entitling ‘Estimation of ammonia emission inventory using life cycle assessment based on livestock manure flow: A case study to manure management sector in Korea’. We have accepted the reviewers’ comments to be constructive and helpful as we revised our manuscript. We believe that our manuscript has been significantly improved. Please find the attached point-by-point response and the revised manuscript (red color) for more details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthor Response
1. Firstly, in terms of research methodology, the material flow method appears to have been simply transplanted to Korea without much innovation. There has been considerable advancement in the development of high-precision spatiotemporal ammonia emission inventories internationally, and this paper, which only presents a total emission inventory, seems somewhat crude.
Response: Thank you for your reviews. Unfortunately, this paper only focused on the estimation methodology of ammonia emission and its applicability. Because Korean methodology of ammonia emission has some limitations on the representativeness in both measurement method and site, the approach of this paper can be provided an alternative in the improvement of ammonia emission inventory of Korea. As future study, we are going to conduct about the spatiotemporal ammonia emission inventories using this new approach, i.e., yearly and regional variation, distribution and comparison of ammonia emission of Korea.
We added some related sentences as follows.
Line 14: However, the methodology of ammonia emission of Korea has some limitations on the representativeness in both measurement method and site.
Line 301: As further study, the spatiotemporal ammonia emission inventories using this new approach can be conducted, i.e., yearly and regional variation, distribution and comparison of ammonia emission of Korea.
2. Secondly, the paper compares the ammonia emission inventories of the UK and Korea, but I am not clear about the purpose of this comparison. The geographical and livestock management conditions between the two countries are vastly different, and a simple comparison may not be meaningful.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I agree your opinion. Indeed, the comparison of ammonia emissions between Korea and UK is not make sense, because the geographical properties, feeding conditions, livestock manure management types, and so on are different between two countries. However, we provide the number of four kind animal (head)s in Table 2 for both countries, thus the comparison of ammonia emissions considering the number of head for each kind animals between Korea and UK can be meaningful.
We added some related comments as follows.
Line 266: Indeed, the comparison of ammonia emissions between Korea and UK is not meaningful, because the geographical properties, feeding conditions, livestock manure management types, and so on are different between two countries. Although, the comparison of ammonia emissions considering the number of head for each kind animals between Korea and UK in Table 2 can be helpful to understand more clearly the results of this study.
3. Thirdly, the paper does not deeply analyze and discuss the similarities and differences between its results and those of CAPSS, leading to insufficient support for its conclusions.
Response: Thank you for your comments.
We added some related comments as follows.
Line 79: Indeed, various research activities related development of ammonia emission factors is recently progressing in Korea, as government-led research projects. Most of studies in those are focusing on field monitoring using a real-time monitoring instruments.
Line 272: The emission factors for beef cattle and pigs were developed (2008) in Korea [7]. Those emission factors were applied in the CAPSS results, the CAPSS emissions showed the similar values with those of this study. This fact means that the approach of this study comparatively reliable and the emission factors for dairy cow and poultry must be developed.
And for ease of reading, we wrote down answers 1, 2, and 3 at once in the attached file and uploaded them. I think you can refer to it.
I also uploaded the revised paper. Please confirm.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript you presented holds significant value for the scientific community.
Ammonia emissions are a continuous concern.
The manuscript you presented aimed to recalculate ammonia emissions in livestock industries using the UK's estimation method, which uses the life cycle assessment of livestock manure, and the title clearly outlined your objectives.
The abstract has been communicated to the readers.
The manuscript is comprehensive, its structure is appropriate, and the facts are accurate.
The presentation appears scientifically correct. The file includes some suggested notes.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
Review 2 was written as an attached file, so we also wrote it in the attached file at the bottom.
Please confirm.
thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBrief summary
The manuscript is good but lack discussion for the comparison based on the life cycle estimation method.
Specific comments
Title
- Line 1: write (estimation) not (improvement)
- Line 3: write (to) not (of)
- Line 4: write (in) not (of)
Abstract
- Line 15: remove (is) before (used)
- Line 17-18: clarify in relation to line 45-46 of introduction
Material and methods
- Line 98: correct (tree) to three
- Line 109: remove (the) before (each)
- Line 112: write (of) not (in)
- Table 1: write abbreviations meaning in footnote below table
Results and discussion
- Line 147: 2018 or 2020? Clarify
- Line 150: there is no big difference between korea and uk in poultry emission?
- Line 154: write (followed by cattle, poultry) not (poultry, cattle)
- Line 162-175: clarify
- Line 165: 2019 not 2014
- Line 166: table 2 or 3?
- Line 166-170: repeated information, adjust or remove
- Line 188: table 4 not 3
- Line 211: write (amounted) not (amountd), write (beef cattle) not (cattle), mention table 6
- Line 219: dairy cattle only not beef cattle was highest in compost land application in table 6 which differ from figure 3
Conclusion
- Line 261-262: write (on) after (based), remove (on) after (loss)
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
Review 3 is large, so please check the attached file.
Thank you
1.The manuscript is good but lack discussion for the comparison based on the life cycle estimation method.
Response: Thank you for your reviews.
We added some explanations as follows
Line 14: However, the methodology of ammonia emission of Korea has some limitations on the representativeness in both measurement method and site.
Line 272: The emission factors for beef cattle and pigs were developed (2008) in Korea [7]. Those emission factors were applied in the CAPSS results, the CAPSS emissions showed the similar values with those of this study. This fact means that the approach of this study comparatively reliable and the emission factors for dairy cow and poultry must be developed.
- Specific comments:
Title
Line 1: write (estimation) not (improvement)
Line 3: write (to) not (of)
Line 4: write (in) not (of)
Line 1~4: Estimation of ammonia emission inventory using life cycle assessment based on livestock manure flow: A case study to manure management sector in Korea
Abstract
Line 15: remove (is) before (used)
Line 16: the UK's estimation method which used the life cycle assessment of livestock manure.
Line 17-18: clarify in relation to line 45-46 of introduction
Line 17-20: Three major animal kinds were selected, i.e., cattle (beef cattle and dairy cow), pigs and chickens, and three major processes based on the manure mass flow were considered, i.e., housing, manure storage and treatment and land application (compost and liquefied fertilizer) processes.
Material and methods
Line 98: correct (tree) to three
Line 109: remove (the) before (each)
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We corrected the phrase.
Line104~106: Figure 1 shows a livestock manure mass flow and ammonia volatilization from each process. Three major animals (i.e., cattle, pigs, and poultry) and three major stages (i.e., livestock housing, intermediate treatment processes and final land application) were considered in this study.
Line 112: write (of) not (in)
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We corrected the phrase.
Line 120: Table 1 shows the comparison of estimation method for ammonia emissions from manure management of agriculture source among Korea, UK, and this study.
Results and discussion
Line 147: 2018 or 2020? Clarify
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We changed the tile of Table 2 as follows
Table 2: Table 2. Comparison of ammonia emission from UK agriculture 2019 [2][21] and Korea ammonia emission 2020[22,23]
Line 150: there is no big difference between korea and uk in poultry emission?
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We corrected the phrase.
Line 165: highest, and followed by cattle, poultry and other animals.
Line 154: write (followed by cattle, poultry) not (poultry, cattle)
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We corrected the phrase.
Line 165: The ammonia emission of pigs in Korea was the highest, and followed by cattle, poultry and other animals
Line 162-175: clarify
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We revised those paragraph as follows
Line 172~: Manure production (MP) was used as activity in this study. Manure production of Korea and total manure production data for four kind animals of the UK in 2014 [25] are shown in Table 3. Statistical data for livestock manure production (MP) by treatment processes were obtained from the report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) of Korea [24]. Pig manure production was the highest in Korea, and followed by beef cattle, dairy cow, and poultry. Pig manure production in Korea was much higher than that in the UK, especially dairy cow manure production was significantly higher than that in Korea. Total manure productions were similar in both countries, while the distribution of manure production among animal kinds was significant. Particularly, piggery manure production in Korea was significantly higher than that of the UK. On the other hand, cattle manure productions in the UK (especially dairy cow manure) were much higher than those in Korea.
.
Line 165: 2019 not 2014
Line 166: table 2 or 3?
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We revised those paragraph as follows
Line 173-174: Manure production (MP) was used as activity in this study. Manure production of Korea and total manure production data for four kind animals of the UK in 2014 [25] are shown in Table 3.
Line 166-170: repeated information, adjust or remove
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We revised those paragraph as follows
Line 172: Manure production (MP) was used as activity in this study. Manure production of Korea and total manure production data for four kind animals of the UK in 2014 [25] are shown in Table 3. Statistical data for livestock manure production (MP) by treatment processes were obtained from the report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) of Korea [24]. Pig manure production was the highest in Korea, and followed by beef cattle, dairy cow, and poultry. Pig manure production in Korea was much higher than that in the UK, especially dairy cow manure production was significantly higher than that in Korea. Total manure productions were similar in both countries, while the distribution of manure production among animal kinds was significant. Particularly, piggery manure production in Korea was significantly higher than that of the UK. On the other hand, cattle manure productions in the UK (especially dairy cow manure) were much higher than those in Korea.
Line 188: table 4 not 3
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We revised those paragraph as follows
Line 200: The initial TAN in housing was determined through several calculation steps based on previous studies [2,21,25-27] , as shown in Table 4
Line 211: write (amounted) not (amountd), write (beef cattle) not (cattle), mention table 6
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We revised those paragraph as follows
Line 228: Ammonia emissions from beef cattle manure amounted to 42,384 ons per year, while emissions from dairy manure were 24,985 ton per year(Table 6).
Line 219: dairy cattle only not beef cattle was highest in compost land application in table 6 which differ from figure 3
Response: Thank you for your reviews. We revised those paragraph as follows
Line 238: Figure 3 illustrates the fractions of ammonia emissions from each manure processes. Ammonia emissions from cattle (dairy cows) and poultry manures were highest from
Conclusion
Line 261-262: write (on) after (based), remove (on) after (loss)
Response: Thank you for your reviews. That sentence was changed to something else.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am sorry to say that, despite the authors' efforts to carefully explain the relevant issues or to indicate that they will intensify their in-depth research in the future, there is no significant improvement in the quality of the manuscript in general, and in particular there is no in-depth analysis of the results of the study, e.g., lines 289-292, which look like suggestions of the problem in the tone of the reviewer rather than a comparative analysis of the problem itself.
