## 3 Results
### Comparison of the Mitigation of Targeted Gases as a Function of UV Wavelength
#### 3.2.1 Odor--Effects of UV Wavelength  
The short UV-C wavelength (185 + 254 nm) resulted in a 44% reduction of overall detected odor. This was a remarkable mitigation effect, considering that the UV dose was the lowest among all tested (Table 6). However, odor reduction was not significant  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**UV-A Dose** & **Light Intensity** & **Treatment** & **Control** & **Treatment** & **\% Reduction** \\ (mJ/cm\({}^{2}\))** & **(mW/cm\({}^{2}\))** & **Time (s)** & **(ppm)** & **(ppm)** & **(\(p\)-Value)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{UV dose control with UV light intensity} \\
1.3 & 0.14 & 9.5 & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 3.5 (0.22) \\
2.5 & 0.26 & 9.5 & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & **9.0 (<0.01)** \\
3.9 & 0.41 & 9.5 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & **4.3 (0.02)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{UV dose control with treatment time} \\
1.3 & 0.41 & 3.2 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.4 (0.85) \\
2.0 & 0.41 & 4.8 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.2 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 17.1 (0.09) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{UV dose control with UV light intensity and treatment time} \\
5.8 \({}^{*}\) & 0.41 and 0.04 & 9.5 and 47.6 & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.2 \(\pm\) 0.0 & **14.2 (0.03)** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. \({}^{*}\) Irradiation with 5 UV-A lamps per each chamber (#1–#12, a total of 60 lamps turned on) with additional 100 portable UV-A lamps in chambers #2 and #3 turned on, 160 lamps total (installed and portable). Inlet and outlet air temperature = 19 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 22 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Mitigation of N\({}_{2}\)O with the different UV doses (1.3, 2.0, 2.5, 3.9, and 5.8 mJ/cm\({}^{2}\)) irradiating gaseous emissions from swine manure. Bold signifies statistical significance.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**UV-A Dose** & **Light Intensity** & **Treatment** & **Control** & **Treatment** & **\% Reduction** \\ (mJ/cm\({}^{2}\)) & **(mW/cm\({}^{2}\))** & **Time (s)** & **(ppm)** & **(ppm)** & **(\(p\)-Value)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{UV dose control with UV light intensity} \\
1.3 & 0.14 & 9.5 & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 4.5 \(\pm\)0.1 & 1.0 (0.33) \\
2.5 & 0.26 & 9.5 & 5.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 5.7 \(\pm\)0.1 & 1.3 (0.21) \\
3.9 & 0.41 & 9.5 & 5.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 5.3 \(\pm\)0.2 & 2.1 (0.38) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{UV dose control with treatment time} \\
1.3 & 0.41 & 3.2 & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 4.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 4.3 (0.41) \\
2.0 & 0.41 & 4.8 & 6.3 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 6.2 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 2.9 (0.93) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{UV dose control with UV light intensity and treatment time} \\
5.8 \({}^{*}\) & 0.41 and 0.04 & 9.5 and 47.6 & 6.0 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 & **6.1 (0.04)** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. \({}^{*}\) Irradiation with 5 UV-A lamps per each chamber (#1–#12, a total of 60 lamps turned on) with additional 100 portable UV-A lamps in chambers #2 and #3 turned on, 160 lamps total (installed and portable). Inlet and outlet air temperature = 19 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 22 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
\end{table}
Table 5: Mitigation of NH\({}_{3}\) with the different UV doses (1.3, 2.0, 2.5, 3.9, and 5.8 mJ/cm\({}^{2}\)) irradiating gaseous emissions from swine manure. Bold signifies statistical significance.  
for all treatments (0.09 \(<\)_p_-value \(<\) 0.94). This was likely due to the variability of control used for just one treatment chamber tested (Table 6). Odor measurements via dilution olfactory and human panelists are inherently more variable than chemical analyses. This limitation could be addressed by refurbishing the entire UV mobile laboratory with one type of lamp, effectively allowing a more extensive range of doses to be tested (e.g., lower variability reported for UV treatment using an entire mobile lab with 12 chambers facilitating treatment, Table 1).