| Air Pollution and Odor in Communities Near Industrial Swine Operations Steve Wing,1 Rachel Avery Horton,1 Stephen W. Marshall,1 Kendall Thu,2 Mansoureh Tajik,3 Leah Schinasi,1 and Susan S. Schiffman4 1Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; 2Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA; 3Department of Health and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA; 4Department of Psychiatry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA Abstract
Background: Odors can affect health and quality of life. Industrialized animal agriculture creates odorant compounds that are components of a mixture of agents that could trigger symptoms reported by neighbors of livestock operations. Objective: We quantified swine odor episodes reported by neighbors and the relationships of these episodes with environmental measurements. Methods: Between September 2003 and September 2005, 101 nonsmoking volunteers living within 1.5 mi of industrial swine operations in 16 neighborhoods in eastern North Carolina completed twice-daily odor diaries for approximately 2 weeks. Meteorological conditions, hydrogen sulfide, and particulate matter ≤ 10 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) were monitored in each neighborhood. We used mixed models to partition odor variance within and between people and between neighborhoods, and to quantify relationships between environmental factors and odor. Results: Participants reported 1,655 episodes of swine odor. In nine neighborhoods, odor was reported on more than half of study-days. Odor ratings were related to temperature, PM10, and semivolatile PM10 in standard but not mixed models. In mixed models, odor increased 0.15 ± 0.05 units (mean ± SE) for a 1-ppb increase in H2S, and 0.45 ± 0.14 units for a 10-µg/m3 increase in PM10 at wind speeds > 6.75 miles per hour. The odds of reporting a change in daily activities due to odor increased 62% for each unit increase in average odor during the prior 12 hr (t-value = 7.17) . Conclusions: This study indicates that malodor from swine operations is commonly present in these communities and that the odors reported by neighbors are related to objective environmental measurements and interruption of activities of daily life. Key words: agriculture, air pollution, community-based participatory research, environmental justice, epidemiology, quality of life, rural health. Environ Health Perspect 116: 1362–1368 (2008) . doi:10.1289/ehp.11250 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 5 June 2008]
Address correspondence to S. Wing, 2101F McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, CB# 7435, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435 USA. Telephone: (919) 966-7416. Fax: (919) 966-2089. Email: steve_wing@unc.edu D. Davis, J. Godwin, G. Grant, S. Hutton, A. Lowman, M. Mirabelli, N. Muhammad, J. Watkins, and S. Wolf played key roles in field work and study support. We are indebted to the Concerned Citizens of Tillery and the Alliance for a Responsible Swine Industry for guidance and support, and to the study participants for their hard work and commitment to collection of data. This research was supported by grant R01 ES011359 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cooperative agreement CR829522 with the Center for Environmental Medicine, Asthma, and Lung Biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This paper has not been subjected to the U.S. EPA's required peer and policy review, and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. In exchange for a report and testimony, a law firm representing plaintiffs in a civil suit about impacts of an industrial swine operation on its neighbors contributed $2,000 to the University of North Carolina in support of S.W.'s research. K.T. has served as a consultant and provided testimony in civil suits regarding impacts of industrial swine operations on neighbors, and has received funding from the Iowa Pork Producers Association and the National Pork Producers Council. S.S.S. has received funding from the National Pork Board, the North Carolina Pork Council, and the Smithfield Agreement between Smithfield Foods and the State of North Carolina. The remaining authors declare they have no competing financial interests. Received 9 January 2008 ; accepted 5 June 2008.
The full version of this article is available for free in HTML or PDF formats. |
