Swine production impact on residential ambient air quality

Journal of Agromedicine

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 291-298

  Godbout, Stéphane ^a   Lemay, Stéphane P ^a,b   Duchaine, Caroline ^c   Pelletier, Frédéric ^d   Larouche, Jean Pierre ^d   Belzile, Martin ^d   Feddes, John J R ^e  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

^c LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d Research and Development Institute for Agri Environment (IRDA)   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ambient air quality; Ammonia; Hydrogen sulfide; Odor; Public health; Swine production

Indexed keywords

AMMONIA; HYDROGEN SULFIDE;

AGAR GEL ELECTROPHORESIS; AGRICULTURE; AIR POLLUTANT; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CANADA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HUMAN; ODOR; QUESTIONNAIRE; RURAL POPULATION; SWINE;

AGRICULTURE; AIR POLLUTANTS; AMMONIA; ANIMALS; ELECTROPHORESIS, AGAR GEL; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HUMANS; HYDROGEN SULFIDE; ODORS; QUEBEC; QUESTIONNAIRES; RURAL POPULATION; SWINE;

SUIDAE;

EID: 70449102589     PISSN: 1059924X     EISSN: 15450813     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10599240903041943     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Hartung J, Phillips VR. Control of Gaseous Emissions from Livestock Building and Manure Stores. J Agr Eng Res 1994;57:173-189.
2. EPA. Ammonia. Environmental Protection Agency, IRIS Database for Risk Assessment. [Updated on 10 January 2008.] Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0422.htm (accessed 17 November 2008).
3. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Ammonia. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2004.
4. MDH. Health Risk Values For Air. Minnesota Department of Health. [Updated on March 2002.] Available at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/ eh/risk/guidance/air/table.html (accessed 7 May 2009).
5. OEHAA. All Chronic Reference Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA. California Enviromental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. [Updated February 2005.] Available at http://www.oehha.org/air/chronic_rels/AllChrels.html (accessed 17 November 2008).
6. MPCA. Minnesota Rules 7009 Ambient air quality standards. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. [Updated April 2000.] Available at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/7009 (accessed 17 November 2008).
7. CEPA. Determination or Acute Reference Exposure Levels. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section. 1999.
8. EPA. Hydrogen Sulfide. Environmental Protection Agency, IRIS Database for Risk Assessment. [Updated on 15 January 2008.] Available at http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/0061.htm (accessed 17 November 2008).
9. ATSDR. Draft-Toxicological Profile for Hydrogen Sulfide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2004.
10. Schiffman SS, Studwell CE, Landerman LR, Berman K, Sundy JS. Symptomatic effects of exposure to diluted air sampled from a swine confinement atmosphere on healthy human subjects. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113:567-576.
11. Thu K, Donham K, Ziegenhorn R, Reynolds S, Thorne PS, Subramanian P, Whitten P, Stookesberry J. A control study of the physical and mental health of residents living near a large-scale swine operation. J Agric Saf Health. 1997;3:13-26.
12. Thu KM. Public health concerns for neighbors of large-scale swine production operations. J Agric Saf Health. 2002;8:175-184.
13. Schiffman SS, Miller EA, Suggs MS, Graham BG. The effect of environmental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Res Bull. 1995;37:369-375.
14. Wing S, Wolf S. Intensive livestock operations, health and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents. Environ Health Perspect 2000;108:233-238.
15. BSI. Air Quality - Determination of Odor Concentration by Dynamic Olfactometry. BS EN 13725. London, UK: British Standards Institution; 2003.
16. Feddes JJR, Qu G, Ouellette C, Leonard J. Development of an eight-panelist single port, forced-choice, dynamic dilution olfactometer. J Can Biosyst Eng. 2001; 43:6.1-6.5.
17. ASTM. E 544-99: Standard practices for referencing suprathreshold odor intensity. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1999 11p.
18. Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG. Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993;59:695-700.
19. Bach HJ, Tomanova J, Schloter M, Munch JC. Enumeration of total bacteria and bacteria with genes for proteolytic activity in pure cultures and in environmental samples by quantitative PCR mediated amplification. J Microbiol Methods. 2002;49:235-245.
20. DSPM. Final report of the public health section of the research project. Direction de la sant ́publique de la Montŕǵie. In press.
21. Littell, RC, Lilliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1996.