FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4386272565> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4386272565 abstract "Vol. 131, No. 8 Science SelectionOpen AccessBearing the Brunt: Who Breathes the Air Pollutants from Hog CAFOs in North Carolina?is accompanied byModeling and Analysis of Air Pollution and Environmental Justice: The Case for North Carolina’s Hog Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Silke Schmidt Silke Schmidt Search for more papers by this author Published:30 August 2023CID: 084003https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13526AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit AbstractPollution from eastern North Carolina’s hog industry has been studied for more than 30 years.1,2 Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and their open waste storage pits emit two chemicals of particular concern to human health: ammonia (ammoniaNH3) and hydrogen sulfide (hydrogen sulfideH2S).3,4 Some previous studies of the region’s hog CAFOs focused on environmental injustice,5,6 noting that such facilities were disproportionately located near low-income communities of color. Going beyond these proximity-based analyses, a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives7 applied a dispersion model for transport of ammoniaNH3 and hydrogen sulfideH2S over space and time to estimate human exposure.8The study region, with its 822,071 residents and 1,292 hog CAFOs, included Duplin County and parts of six surrounding counties. The dispersion model accounted for the permitted number of hogs at each facility in 2019 and the predicted movement of chemical plumes based on local temperatures, wind direction, and wind speed.7Hog CAFOs emit pollutants from waste lagoons, like this one next to a barn in Pitt County, North Carolina; in air exhausted from barns; and when wastewater is sprayed on fields. Image © Gerry Broome/AP Photo.The researchers first estimated human exposure by multiplying the number of permitted hogs at each CAFO by annual per-animal emission factors for ammoniaNH3 and hydrogen sulfideH2S.9,10 They combined this information with meteorological data from the National Weather Service to simulate ambient concentrations for each U.S. census block group within 50 kilometers50km of that facility’s center.7Next, they compared exposures between subgroups defined by census area demographics of race/ethnicity, age, income, education, and English language proficiency, based on the 2012–2016 American Community Survey.11They found that the largest CAFOs (21,000–53,000 animals) were predominantly located in block groups where more than 56% of residents were people of color (i.e., other than solely non-Hispanic White). Compared with averages for the study region overall, exposures to NH3 and H2S were 66% higher for households where members spoke English less than “very well,” 32% higher for adults without a high school diploma, 16% higher for people of color, and 13% higher for low-income households.“Our study is the first to document disparities in exposure to two specific air pollutants from hog CAFOs in eastern North Carolina,” says first author Brandon Lewis, a PhD student at Yale University. “This environmental justice lens brings even more awareness to the [disproportionate] impact of CAFOs on vulnerable communities.”Still, the model underestimates real-life exposures due to substantial data gaps, Lewis says. The researchers obtained hog CAFO location and permitted capacity data from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. However, these permits are issued only once every 5 years. In addition, the researchers were unable to account for exposures from manure that had been spread on nearby agricultural fields and the region’s numerous poultry CAFOs, which contribute significantly to ammoniaNH3 emissions.12Twenty years ago—the most recent data available—an estimated 80% of ammoniaNH3 emissions in North Carolina came from livestock waste; other sources included forests, vehicle exhaust, fertilizers, and nonagricultural vegetation.13 The state’s swine production grew dramatically during the period from 1982 to 2006, when massive operations by multinational corporations (predominantly Smithfield Foods) increased the state’s hog population from 2 million2 million to 10 million10 million, even as the number of small, family-owned hog farms declined.14 Today, 95% of hog CAFOs in North Carolina are concentrated in the eastern coastal plain.14,15Both ammoniaNH3 and hydrogen sulfideH2S form during the anaerobic breakdown of nitrogen-containing chemicals in hog manure, contributing to malodor, which creates psychological and physiological stress.16,17ammoniaNH3 reacts with atmospheric chemicals to form fine particulate matter (particulate matter begin subscript 2.5 end subscriptPM2.5) and through this process has been estimated to cause 69% of annual deaths attributable to reduced air quality from agricultural production.18 Human exposure to hydrogen sulfideH2S has been associated with respiratory, cardiovascular, and central nervous system symptoms.19–21“Dispersion and atmospheric chemistry are important predictors of air pollutant levels,” says Jason Hill, a professor of bioproducts and biosystems engineering at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the project. “This study advances the field by accounting for all nearby hog CAFOs to deliver human exposure estimates at high spatial resolution.”Jill Johnston, an associate professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, agrees with Hill’s assessment. “This is the first study in the United States to apply detailed dispersion models of CAFO air pollutants at a multi-county scale,” says Johnston, who also was not involved in the project. “Since many air pollution researchers rely on monitors located in urban areas, it is especially exciting to see high-quality studies being conducted in rural areas.”Johnston notes that the analysis reflects just a snapshot of real-world conditions. She says installing monitors in the community would be useful to validate the model estimates.Hill suggests that any future efforts could focus on improving waste management at the subset of facilities with especially high emissions. “Addressing the environmental justice component of CAFO pollution requires analyses at both large and small scales because national policies and local permitting procedures play important roles,” says Hill.Silke Schmidt, PhD, writes about science, health, and the environment from Madison, Wisconsin.References1. Donham KJ. 1990. Health effects from work in swine confinement buildings. Am J Ind Med 17(1):17–25, PMID: 2407112, 10.1002/ajim.4700170105. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2. Wing S, Wolf S. 2000. Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents. Environ Health Perspect 108(3):233–238, PMID: 10706529, 10.1289/ehp.00108233. Link, Google Scholar3. Von Essen S, Donham K. 1999. Illness and injury in animal confinement workers. Occup Med 14(2):337–350, PMID: 10329909. Medline, Google Scholar4. Guidry VT, Kinlaw AC, Johnston J, Hall D, Wing S. 2017. Hydrogen sulfide concentrations at three middle schools near industrial livestock facilities. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 27(2):167–174, PMID: 27094997, 10.1038/jes.2016.7. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5. Wing S, Cole D, Grant G. 2000. Environmental injustice in North Carolina’s hog industry. Environ Health Perspect 108(3):225–231, PMID: 10706528, 10.1289/ehp.00108225. Link, Google Scholar6. Wing S, Horton RA, Muhammad N, Grant GR, Tajik M, Thu K, et al.2008. Integrating epidemiology, education, and organizing for environmental justice: community health effects of industrial hog operations. Am J Public Health 98(8):1390–1397, PMID: 18556620, 10.2105/AJPH.2007.110486. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7. Lewis BM, Battye WH, Aneja VP, Kim H, Bell ML. 2023. Modeling and analysis of air pollution and environmental justice: the case for North Carolina’s hog concentrated animal feeding operations. Environ Health Perspect 131(8):087018, 10.1289/EHP11344. Link, Google Scholar8. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2019. Multi HEM-3 and RTR Summary Programs User’s Guide. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/multi_hem-3_users_guide.pdf [accessed 22 June 2023]. Google Scholar9. U.S. EPA. 2018. Technical Support Document (TSD) Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the Version 7.1 2014 Emissions Modeling Platform for the National Air Toxics Assessment. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-08/documents/2014v7.1_2014_emismod_tsd.pdf [accessed 22 June 2023]. Google Scholar10. Rumsey IC, Aneja VP, Lonneman WA. 2014. Characterizing reduced sulfur compounds emissions from a swine concentrated animal feeding operation. Atmos Environ 94:458–466, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.05.041. Crossref, Google Scholar11. U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. American Community Survey. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs [accessed 22 June 2023]. Google Scholar12. McQuilling AM, Adams PJ. 2015. Semi-empirical process-based models for ammonia emissions from beef, swine, and poultry operations in the United States. Atmos Environ 120:127–136, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.084. Crossref, Google Scholar13. Battye WH, Aneja VP, Rolelle PA. 2003. Evaluation and improvement of ammonia emissions inventories. Atmos Environ 37(27):3873–3883, 10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00343-1. Crossref, Google Scholar14. Edwards B, Driscoll A.2009. From farms to factories: The environmental consequences of swine industrialization in North Carolina. In: Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology. Gould K, Lewis T, eds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 153–175. Google Scholar15. Furuseth OJ. 1997. Restructuring of hog farming in North Carolina: explosion and implosion. Prof Geogr 49(4):391–403, 10.1111/0033-0124.00086. Crossref, Google Scholar16. Wing S, Horton RA, Marshall SW, Thu K, Tajik M, Schinasi L, et al.2008. Air pollution and odor in communities near industrial swine operations. Environ Health Perspect 116(10):1362–1368, PMID: 18941579, 10.1289/ehp.11250. Link, Google Scholar17. Horton RA, Wing S, Marshall SW, Brownley KA. 2009. Malodor as a trigger of stress and negative mood in neighbors of industrial hog operations. Am J Public Health 99(Suppl 3):S610–S615, PMID: 19890165, 10.2105/AJPH.2008.148924. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar18. Domingo NGG, Balasubramanian S, Thakrar SK, Clark MA, Adams PJ, Marshall JD, et al.2021. Air quality-related health damages of food. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118(20):e2013637118, PMID: 33972419, 10.1073/pnas.2013637118. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar19. Lewis RJ, Copley GB. 2015. Chronic low-level hydrogen sulfide exposure and potential effects on human health: a review of the epidemiological evidence. Crit Rev Toxicol 45(2):93–123, PMID: 25430508, 10.3109/10408444.2014.971943. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar20. Fiedler N, Kipen H, Ohman-Strickland P, Zhang J, Weisel C, Laumbach R, et al.2008. Sensory and cognitive effects of acute exposure to hydrogen sulfide. Environ Health Perspect 116(1):78–85, PMID: 18197303, 10.1289/ehp.10531. Link, Google Scholar21. Lim E, Mbowe O, Lee ASW, Davis J. 2016. Effect of environmental exposure to hydrogen sulfide on central nervous system and respiratory function: a systematic review of human studies. Int J Occup Environ Health 22(1):80–90, PMID: 27128692, 10.1080/10773525.2016.1145881. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesModeling and Analysis of Air Pollution and Environmental Justice: The Case for North Carolina’s Hog Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations24 August 2023Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 131, No. 8 August 2023Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Manuscript received23 June 2023Manuscript accepted11 July 2023Originally published30 August 2023 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days." @default.
• W4386272565 created "2023-08-31" @default.
• W4386272565 creator A5017596515 @default.
• W4386272565 date "2023-08-01" @default.
• W4386272565 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W4386272565 title "Bearing the Brunt: Who Breathes the Air Pollutants from Hog CAFOs in North Carolina?" @default.
• W4386272565 cites W1224219992 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W1516911331 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2003101486 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2022097825 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2048284529 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2059668461 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2066042780 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2081571691 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2106879236 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2136062671 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2151911443 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2163544751 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2259744699 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2334430215 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2335793357 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W2345041929 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W3162473508 @default.
• W4386272565 cites W4386116116 @default.
• W4386272565 doi "https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp13526" @default.
• W4386272565 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37647125" @default.
• W4386272565 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4386272565 type Work @default.
• W4386272565 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4386272565 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4386272565 hasAuthorship W4386272565A5017596515 @default.
• W4386272565 hasBestOaLocation W43862725651 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C107872376 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C178790620 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C2987853052 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C526734887 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C559116025 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C82685317 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C107872376 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C178790620 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C185592680 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C2987853052 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C39432304 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C526734887 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C559116025 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C71924100 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C82685317 @default.
• W4386272565 hasConceptScore W4386272565C99454951 @default.
• W4386272565 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W4386272565 hasLocation W43862725651 @default.
• W4386272565 hasLocation W43862725652 @default.
• W4386272565 hasOpenAccess W4386272565 @default.
• W4386272565 hasPrimaryLocation W43862725651 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W187070240 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W1966582950 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W1981448468 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W2201031442 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W2354679988 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W2381763096 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W2382033057 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W2565454344 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W2769895962 @default.
• W4386272565 hasRelatedWork W3013787064 @default.
• W4386272565 hasVolume "131" @default.
• W4386272565 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4386272565 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4386272565 workType "article" @default.