National Collaborating Centre
`for Environmental Health
`
`Centre de collaboration nationale
`en sante environnementale
`
`
`Air Quality and Community
`Health Impact of Animal
`Manure Management
`Siduo Zhanga
`
`
`SEPTEMBER 2011
`
`Summary
`
`• Nearly 200 million tonnes of livestock
`manure are generated in Canada each
`year.1 Manure storage and land
`application tends to produce odour,
`greenhouse gases, microbes, and
`particulate matter, which can negatively
`impact the environment and human
`health.
`
`• Occupational exposures of manure
`management have been linked to
`psychological stress and adverse effects
`on the respiratory system and heart
`function.
`
`• Community health risks may result from
`poor local air quality related to manure
`management. Limited studies suggest
`respiratory and psychological health
`impacts on residents living in proximity
`to manure management operations.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`There are research gaps on
`comprehensive assessments of manure
`management and its effects on air
`quality and community health.
`
`These gaps deserve attention since
`many Canadians live on or near
`livestock farms.
`
`a School of Population and Public Health, University
`of British Columbia
`
`Introduction
`
`Animal manure is a primary by-product of the
`livestock industry. In 2006, Canada’s livestock
`farm cash receipts amounted to $17.7 billion,
`ranking third in total agriculture receipts.2 The
`corresponding manure generation was
`181 million tonnes.1
`
`Animal manure has complex composition with
`various nutrient components like nitrogen,
`phosphorus, and potassium. Manure from
`different animals varies in density, water
`content, and nutrient content.3 Livestock farms
`conventionally store the manure for months and
`apply it to land as fertilizer.4 This practice results
`in emissions to air and water, caused by
`microbial decomposition of the organic matter in
`manure.
`
`This report reviews evidence of air quality and
`community health risks from animal manure
`management. Community health tends to focus
`on people within geographic communities rather
`than the general public (public health) or people
`with a common occupation(occupational
`health).5 The review covers up-to-date literature
`and reports from on-line databases and
`institutions; see Appendix A for methodology
`used to conduct the literature review. Key
`research and policy gaps are presented.
`
`• I
`
`t > (J)
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 1 of 10
`
`

`

`Manure Management
`
`Manure on farms is usually stored for property
`stabilization and to meet fertilizable timing. Manure
`storage systems generally fall into three categories:
`stockpile, tank, and lagoon. Stockpiles consist of
`heaps of solid manure above ground, whereas tanks
`and lagoons contain mainly liquid manure and semi-
`solid manure. Tanks are built vessels or rooms above
`ground or underground, and lagoons are natural or
`artificial underground pits.6
`
`Stored manure will eventually be applied on land
`manually or mechanically. There are basically five
`ways to apply manure7,8:
`
`2)
`
`1) Broadcasting is spreading the manure evenly on
`top of the soil;
`Incorporating involves blending the fertilizer with
`top soil and usually follows broadcasting;
`3) Banding specifically takes place while planting
`seeds; the fertilizer is placed in a band a few
`inches to the side and below the seed row;
`Injection, similar to banding, also injects fertilizer
`into the soil but not necessarily during the planting
`process;
`5) Fertigation is the practice of integrating water
`and fertilizers together so that nutrients are
`applied when the plants are irrigated.
`
`4)
`
`Broadcasting and injection are most commonly used
`for land crops and fertigation is usually applied in
`commercial greenhouses.
`
`Emissions from Manure
`Management
`
`When manure is stored, microorganisms in manure
`decompose the organic matter and release a number
`of pollutants. The greatest proportion of air pollution
`emissions from manure management takes place
`during manure storage because it is concentrated and
`continuous, putting farm workers at high risk. Factors
`influencing manure storage emissions include animal
`species, storage system structures, and local
`environment. Specifically, the original nutrient content,
`ambient temperature, and aeration conditions directly
`determine the digestion of the organic matter and thus
`the final emissions. Similar to manure storage, soil
`microorganisms along with manure microorganisms
`
`continue the decomposition process after land
`application. Soil conditions and local weather will
`additionally influence the micro-environment and
`therefore the decomposition processes. Emissions
`from manure application are released gradually for
`months and will eventually disperse. Hence the impact
`on community health basically results from manure
`land application.
`
`O’Neill and Phillips reported nearly 200 compounds
`emitted from animal manure management,9 with
`volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH3),
`hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and particulate matter (PM)
`being those most relevant for potential human health
`impacts. A brief description of these pollutants follows:
`
`•
`
`VOCs are formed when the biological
`macromolecules in manure begin to degrade.
`Examples are volatile fatty acids, phenols,
`indoles, and alkane.4,9 Some of these VOCs are
`identified as respiratory tract, skin or eye irritants4.
`If the environment is oxygen deficient, VOCs can
`be converted to mainly CH4. Under aerobic
`conditions, VOCs can be completely oxidized to
`CO2 and water.
`
`• NH3 emitted from manure can be produced
`following urea (mammals) or uric acid (poultry)
`hydrolysis.10 When manure is stored for long
`periods of time or applied in the soil, formation of
`NH3 will also occur with the microbial breakdown
`of organic nitrogen under both aerobic and
`anaerobic conditions.11 NH3 irritates the eyes at
`20-50 ppm and can cause nausea after
`inhalation.12
`
`• H2S is derived from sulphur-containing organic
`compounds in manure under anaerobic
`conditions.12 It is considered the most dangerous
`gas in manure handling because a worker can be
`killed after inhalation at a concentration above
`800 ppm.12 H2S at low levels (1-5 ppm) can cause
`nausea and headaches.13
`
`•
`
`PM or dusts derived from manure handling are
`mainly aerosolized particles combined with
`organisms like bacteria, fungi, and moulds.14
`Bioactive substances like endotoxins and glucans
`originate from the cell wall of the microorganisms
`and have been identified as toxins and
`inflammatory mediators in many studies.15-17
`These particulate pollutants are usually generated
`from solid manure storage and composting;
`however, livestock feeding operation is an
`important source of PMs in barns. Eighty percent
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`

`of these particles inside swine and poultry barns
`are less than 5 μm in diameter, which can be
`inhaled into the lungs.18
`
`• CH4 and CO2 are both final products of organic
`matter decomposition; the proportions are
`determined by aeration conditions. CH4 is
`generated from incomplete oxidization under
`anaerobic conditions, while CO2 is generated from
`complete oxidization in aerobic conditions. CH4
`does not have immediate health impact potential
`at a low concentration but it is a greenhouse gas
`with a global warming potential 25 times that of
`19
`CO2.
`
`• N2O is produced as a by-product from combined
`nitrification and de-nitrification of nitrogen species
`as a consequence of changes in the aeration
`
`conditions.20,21 The overall emission of N2O
`depends on the nitrogen and carbon content of
`manure and ambient environment parameters.22
`N2O is also a greenhouse gas with no immediate
`health impact potential in this case, but the global
`19
`warming potential is 298 times that of CO2.
`
`Generally speaking, more VOCs, H2S, and CH4 are
`generated under anaerobic conditions and NH3, N2O,
`and CO2 production is favoured in aerobic
`conditions.20,23,24 Covered storage of liquid manure
`tends to create an anaerobic environment while open
`storage and land application mainly involve aerobic
`processes.25,26 Table 1 shows the national inventory of
`typical emissions from manure management available
`from 2005 to 2008.27,28 Data were obtained from
`census and necessary calculations.
`
`Table 1. Emissions inventory of manure management in Canada 2005-2008, reported by Environment
`Canada
`
`NH3
`(kt)
`
`368.8
`
`326.5
`
`324.1
`
`308.2
`
`VOC
`(kt)
`
`300.5
`
`291.1
`
`291.1
`
`312.9
`
`TPM
`(kt)
`
`334.2
`
`338.2
`
`338.2
`
`344.8
`
`PM10
`(kt)
`
`213.3
`
`215.5
`
`215.5
`
`220.4
`
`PM2.5
`(kt)
`
`32.3
`
`32.0
`
`32.0
`
`33.9
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`CH4
`(Mt CO2eq)
`
`N2O
`(Mt CO2eq)
`
`3.1
`
`3.1
`
`3.0
`
`2.8
`
`5.0
`
`4.9
`
`4.8
`
`4.7
`
`kt – kilotonne = 1,000 tonnes; Mt – megatonne = 1,000,000 tonnes
`TPM – total particulate matter
`CO2eq – carbon dioxide equivalent value; calculated by multiplying the amount of the gas by its associated 100-year global
`warming potential (GWP).
`
`Efforts have been made to mitigate emissions from
`manure management. These include dietary
`modification, storage control, application of pre-
`treatment, and other manure utilization technologies,
`such as anaerobic digestion.29-31 Nevertheless, the
`effectiveness of the mitigation approaches is limited
`and air pollutant emissions from manure management
`remain a problem.
`
`Community Health Impacts from
`Manure Management
`
`Air pollution emissions from animal manure may pose
`a health threat to workers and community residents.17
`Occupational health issues with regard to manure
`management have been more extensively studied
`
`than community health issues. Workers on intensive
`livestock farms can be directly exposed to air pollution
`from animal manure. These exposures have been
`associated with respiratory and cardiovascular effects,
`impacts on psychological well-being, and even acute
`poisoning or death. Common symptoms include
`nausea, coughing, eye irritation, and headaches,
`which can happen within hours of exposure.32,33 Other
`impacts include: chronic cough, chest tightness,
`wheeze, phlegm, increased cardiopulmonary risk
`(increased sympathetic tone in the cardiovascular
`system), as well as psychological symptoms, such as
`frequent depression, tension, and anger.32-35 Aged
`farm workers, working on livestock farms for years,
`are more vulnerable to chronic diseases. Moreover,
`there are fatal asphyxiation accidents of farm workers
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`

`from exposure to gaseous emissions from manure
`lagoons.36,37
`
`from nearby communities, studies specifically on
`community health related to manure spreading are
`quite rare. Among the limited investigations are
`several epidemiologic studies in areas surrounding
`Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), in
`which the dominant sources of air emissions are those
`from manure management38,39; here the manure
`storage process is believed to be more involved than
`manure spreading. These studies are summarized in
`Table 2.
`
`Unlike occupational health issues, the overall ambient
`air quality, rather than primary emissions in confined
`spaces, is more relevant for community health.
`However, there are few reports of ambient air quality
`investigations related to manure management
`operations. Accordingly, impacts on health of
`residents living in the vicinity of animal farms are not
`well studied.38 While manure spreading causes
`substantial air emissions and therefore complaints
`Table 2. Summary of the peer reviewed literature for community health issues related to manure
`management
`
`Authors
`
`Schiffman et
`al. (1995)40
`
`Study
`Location
`and Period
`
`North
`Carolina,
`USA; period
`n/a
`
`Thu et al.
`(1997)41
`
`N/A
`
`Wing et al.
`(2000)42
`
`North
`Carolina,
`USA; 1999
`
`Radon et al.
`(2004)43
`
`Northern
`Germany;
`period n/a
`
`Method
`
`Sample
`Size
`
`Health
`Outcomes
`
`Results
`
`Cross-sectional survey on: 1)
`residents living an average
`of 5.3 ± 6.5 years near hog
`operations;
`2) control residents.
`
`44 study
`and 44
`control
`
`Profile of Mood
`States (POMS)
`Total Mood
`Disturbance
`score (TMD)
`
`1) Interviews on residents
`living within a 2-mile radius
`of a 4,000-sow swine
`production facility;
`2) Data review on a random
`sample of demographically-
`comparable rural residents
`living near minimal livestock
`production.
`
`Cross-sectional interviews
`on:
`1) residents living within a 2-
`mile radius of a 6,000-head
`hog operation; 2) living within
`2-mile radius of two intensive
`cattle operations;
`3) an agricultural area
`without livestock operations.
`
`Survey on all the residents
`living in a rural town with
`intensive animal production.
`
`Respiratory
`
`18 study
`and 18
`control
`
`~50 in each
`area
`
`Respiratory,
`gastrointestinal,
`skin/eye
`irritation,
`miscellaneous,
`Quality of life
`(QoL)
`
`3112
`
`Quality of Life
`(QoL)
`
`More tension, more depression,
`more anger, less vigor, more
`fatigue, and more confusion
`reported among residents near
`intensive swine operations. The
`study group had significantly worse
`scores than the control group for
`every POMS factor and the TMD
`score (p < 0.0001).
`
`Significantly higher rates of four
`clusters of symptoms known to
`represent toxic or inflammatory
`effects on the respiratory tract
`reported among residents near
`large-scale swine operations.
`
`Increased occurrences of
`headaches, runny nose, sore
`throat, excessive coughing,
`diarrhea, and burning eyes among
`nearby residents. QoL was not
`significantly influenced in the
`vicinity of the cattle operation, but
`greatly reduced among residents
`near the hog operation.
`
`Odour annoyance is a strong
`negative predictor of QoL among
`nearby residents. Sixty-one percent
`of the respondents complained
`about unpleasant odours and 91%
`of these accused livestock as
`source of these odours.
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 4 of 10
`
`

`

`Method
`
`Sample
`Size
`
`Health
`Outcomes
`
`Results
`
`Survey and sIgA
`concentration test on
`residents living within 2.4 km
`of at least one hog operation.
`
`15 study
`that serve
`as their
`control
`
`Mucosal
`immune
`function
`
`Asthma
`
`Immunosuppressive effect of
`malodour on mucosal immunity
`was observed.
`
`High prevalence of asthma health
`outcomes observed among children
`living on farms.
`
`Table 2 (cont’d)
`
`Study
`Location
`and Period
`
`North
`Carolina,
`USA; period
`n/a
`
`Iowa, USA;
`1994-1998
`
`Authors
`
`Avery et al.
`(2004)44
`
`Merchant et
`al. (2005)45
`
`Bullers.
`(2005)46
`
`North
`Carolina,
`USA; 1998-
`1999
`
`341 farm
`households,
`202 rural
`nonfarm
`households,
`and
`461 town
`household
`
`48 study
`and 34
`control
`
`Respiratory,
`Sinus, Nausea,
`Psychological
`
`Cross-sectional survey,
`clinical assessment, and
`serum analysis on:
`1) residents living in farm;
`2) town;
`3) rural nonfarm locations.
`
`Cross-sectional interviews
`on:
`1) residents living near
`industrial hog farms;
`2) those in an area that had
`no industrial hog farm
`operations.
`
`Mirabelli et al.
`(2006)47
`
`North
`Carolina,
`USA; 1999–
`2000
`
`Data review on adolescents’
`respiratory health symptoms,
`school environments, and
`location of swine CAFOs.
`
`58,169
`
`Asthma
`
`Sigurdarson
`et al. (2006)48
`
`Iowa, USA;
`2003
`
`Cross-sectional survey on:
`1) a study school located 1.5
`mile from a CAFO,
`2) a control school distant
`from any large-scale
`agricultural operation.
`
`Asthma
`
`61 study
`and 248
`control
`
`Radon et al.
`(2007)49
`
`Lower
`Saxony,
`Germany;
`2002–2004
`
`Survey and clinical
`examinations on residents
`living in towns with high
`density of CAFOs.
`
`6937
`
`Respiratory
`
`Increased respiratory, sinus, and
`nausea problems, increased
`psychological distress, and
`decreased perceptions of control
`were reported among nearby
`residents
`
`Adolescents’ wheezing symptoms
`were observed; associated with
`exposure to airborne pollution from
`confined swine feeding operations.
`The prevalence of wheezing was
`5% higher at schools that were
`located within 3 miles of an
`operation, relative to those beyond
`3 miles and 24% higher at schools
`in which livestock odour was
`noticeable indoors twice per month,
`or more relative to those with no
`odour.
`
`19.7% children from the study
`school and 7.3% children from the
`control school gave a history of
`physician-diagnosed asthma (Odds
`Ratio, 5.60; p=0.0085). When
`analysis included smoking status,
`pet ownership, age, and residence
`in a rural area or on a farm, the
`adjusted Odds Ratio is 5.719
`(p=0.0035).
`
`Adverse effect on respiratory health
`was shown among nearby
`residents.
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`

`Compared to occupational health, information on
`community health impacts is much more limited. The
`studies are restricted to a small group of researchers
`and locations and are cross-sectional in design, with
`no controls at the same location at a different time
`(before a CAFO was built). The methods rely heavily
`on self-report surveys or interviews. Only three of
`them include medical assessments, but these are also
`limited by small sample sizes. Also, although
`symptoms are supposedly related to poor air quality
`due to manure management, no study determined the
`levels of airborne pollutants from manure
`management. However, despite the limitations of the
`studies, they suggest that there are respiratory and
`psychological health impacts on residents living in
`proximity to manure management operations.
`
`Key Gaps
`
`•
`
`There are few analyses of the overall air quality of
`areas near intensive animal manure management
`operations. Hence, there is a lack of information
`for further investigation of community health
`impacts.
`
`References
`
`• Within the limited research on manure
`management and community health impacts, no
`study measured exposures and linked them to
`health outcomes. General epidemiologic studies,
`focused on proximity to CAFOs, provide some
`insight but cannot provide an accurate
`understanding of potential relationships between
`manure management and community health.
`
`• No studies on community health impacts from
`manure management in Canada have been
`published. The gap in research on community
`exposures deserves attention, since many
`Canadians live on or near livestock farms.
`
`Acknowledgments
`
`We would like to thank Xiaotao Tony Bi, Michael
`Brauer, Mark Durkee, Nelson Fok, and Nagmeh Parto
`for their valuable input and review of the document.
`Siduo Zhang acknowledges support from the
`University of British Columbia Bridge Program.
`
`1. Statistics Canada. Change in manure production by
`livestock type. Statistics Canada; 2008;
`http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-
`x/2008004/tbl/manure-fumier/tbl001-man-fum-eng.htm.
`
`7. Cornell University. Whole farm nutrient management
`tutorials Ithaca, NY: Cornell University; 2004:
`http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/Courses/css412/mod5/ext
`_m5_pg4.htm.
`
`2. Statistics Canada. Farm cash receipts--Agriculture
`economic statistics. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada;
`2010; http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-011-x/21-011-
`x2010002-eng.pdf.
`
`3. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Manure
`production and characteristics. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE;
`2003 Feb.
`http://www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu/Pages/Gen
`eral_Docs/Other/ASAE_Manure_Production_Characteri
`stics_Standard.pdf.
`
`4. Bicudo JR, Schmidt DR, Powers W, Zahn JA, Tengman
`CL, Clanton CJ, et al. Odor and voc emissions from
`swine manure storages. Proceedings of the Water
`Environment Federation. 2002;5:123-35.
`
`5. McKenzie J, Pinger R, Kotecki J. An introduction to
`community health. 7 ed. Burlington, MA: Jones and
`Bartlett Learning; 2011.
`
`6. BC Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. Farm
`practices - manure storage and use. Victoria, BC: BC
`Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; 2004 Jan.
`http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/fppa/refguide/activity/
`870218-44_Manure_Storage.pdf.
`
`8. Ryan J. Fertilizer application methods. Encyclopedia of
`Soil Science. 2006;1(1):684-7.
`
`9. Oneill DH, Phillips VR. A review of the control of odor
`nuisance from livestock buildings .3. Properties of the
`odorous substances which have been identified in
`livestock wastes or in the air around them. J Agr Eng
`Res. 1992 Sep;53(1):23-50.
`
`10. Muck RE, Steenhuis TS. Nitrogen losses in free stall
`dairy barns. Agricultural Wastes. 1982;4(1):41-54.
`
`11. Elzing A, Monteny GJ. Modeling and experimental
`determination of ammonia emission rates from a scale
`model dairy-cow house. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng.
`1997;40(3):721-6.
`
`12. Brunet L. Hazardous gases Guelph, ON: Ontario
`Ministry of Agriculture Food & Rural Affairs; 2006:
`http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/04-
`087.pdf.
`
`13. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
`Cheminfo chemical profiles. Hamilton, ON: CCOHS;
`2011; http://ccinfoweb.ccohs.ca/cheminfo/search.html.
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`

`14. Thorne PS, Kiekhaefer MS, Whitten P, Donham KJ.
`Comparison of bioaerosol sampling methods in barns
`housing swine. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992
`Aug;58(8):2543-51.
`
`15. Donham KJ, Haglind P, Peterson Y, Rylander R.
`Environmental and health studies in swine confinement
`buildings. Am J Ind Med. 1986;10(3):289-93.
`
`16. Schulze A, van Strien R, Ehrenstein V, Schierl R,
`Kuchenhoff H, Radon K. Ambient endotoxin level in an
`area with intensive livestock production. Ann Agric
`Environ Med. 2006;13(1):87-91.
`
`17. Donham KJ. Community and occupational health
`concerns in pork production: A review. J Anim Sci. 2010
`Apr;88:E102-E11.
`
`18. Choinière Y, Munroe JA. Air quality inside livestock
`barns. Guelph, ON: Minister of Agriculture, Food and
`Rural Affairs; 1993 Jan.
`http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/swine/fac
`ts/93-001.htm.
`
`19. Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Reisinger A. IPCC
`fourth assessment report (AR4). Climate change 2007:
`Synthesis report. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2007.
`http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_i
`pcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm.
`
`20. Dong H, Mangino J, McAllister TA. Emissions from
`livestock and manure management. IPCC Guidelines
`for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Geneva,
`Switzerland: IPCC; 2006. http://www.ipcc-
`nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_C
`h10_Livestock.pdf.
`
`21. Huther L, Schuchardt F, Willke T. Emissions of
`ammonia and greenhouse gases during storage and
`composting of animal manures. Ammonia and Odour
`Emissions from Animal Production Facilities,
`Proceedings, Vols 1 and 2; 6 - 10 Oct; Vinkeloord, The
`Netherlands; 1997: 327-34, 740.
`
`22. Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Amon T, Zechmeister-
`Boltenstern S. Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia
`emissions during storage and after application of dairy
`cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment. Agr
`Ecosyst Environ. 2006 Feb;112(2-3):153-62.
`
`23. Bussink DW, Oenema O. Ammonia volatilization from
`dairy farming systems in temperate areas: a review.
`Nutr Cycl Agroecosys. 1998 May;51(1):19-33.
`
`24. Amon B, Amon T, Boxberger J, Alt C. Emissions of
`NH3, N2O and CH4 from dairy cows housed in a
`farmyard manure tying stall (housing, manure storage,
`manure spreading). Nutr Cycl Agroecosys. 2001;60(1-
`3):103-13.
`
`25. Nicholson RJ, Webb J, Moore A. A review of the
`environmental effects of different livestock manure
`storage systems, and a suggested procedure for
`assigning environmental ratings. Biosyst Eng. 2002
`Apr;81(4):363-77.
`
`26. Chadwick DR. Emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide
`and methane from cattle manure heaps: effect of
`
`compaction and covering. Atmos Environ. 2005
`Feb;39(4):787-99.
`
`27. Environment Canada. National pollutant release
`inventory (NPRI). Gatineau, QC: Environment Canada;
`2011; http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-
`npri/default.asp?lang=en&n=0EC58C98-
`#Emission_Summaries.
`
`28. Environment Canada. National inventory report 1990-
`2008: Greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada.
`Gatineau QC: Environment Canada; 2010;
`http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&
`xml=492D914C-2EAB-47AB-A045-C62B2CDACC29.
`
`29. Ndegwa PM, Hristov AN, Arogo J, Sheffield RE. A
`review of ammonia emission mitigation techniques for
`concentrated animal feeding operations. Biosyst Eng.
`2008 Aug;100(4):453-69.
`
`30. van der Meer HG. Optimising manure management for
`GHG outcomes. Aust J Exp Agr. 2008;48(1-2):38-45.
`
`31. Aillery M, Gollehon N, Johansson R, Kaplan J, Key N,
`Ribaudo M. Managing manure to improve air and water
`quality. Washington, DC: United States Department of
`Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2005.
`http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err9/err9.pdf.
`
`32. McLeod W, Doss HJ, Person HL. Beware of manure pit
`hazards. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
`Extension; 2002.
`http://nasdonline.org/document/1298/d001097/beware-
`of-manure-pit-hazards.html.
`
`33. Nimmermark S. Odour influence on well-being and
`health with specific focus on animal production
`emissions. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2004;11(2):163-73.
`
`34. Eastern Ontario Health Unit. Medical evaluation and
`risk assessment industrial swine operation and
`community health effects. St. Eugene, ON: Citizens for
`the Environment and Future in Eastern Ontario; 2003
`Oct. http://www.cefeo.org/medicalriskassess.htm.
`
`35. Schiffman SS. Livestock odors: Implications for human
`health and well-being. J Anim Sci. 1998
`May;76(5):1343-55.
`
`36. Shepherd LG. Confined-space accidents on the farm:
`the manure pit and the silo. CJEM. 1999 Jul;1(2):108-
`11.
`
`37. Beaver RL, Field WE. Summary of documented
`fatalities in livestock manure storage and handling
`facilities--1975-2004. J Agromed. 2007;12(2):3-23.
`
`38. Greger M, Koneswaran G. The public health impacts of
`concentrated animal feeding operations on local
`communities. Fam Community Health. 2010 Jan-
`Mar;33(1):11-20.
`
`39. Wallinga D. Concentrated animal feeding operations:
`Health risks from air pollution. Minneapolis, MN:
`Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; 2004.
`
`40. Schiffman SS, Miller EAS, Suggs MS, Graham BG. The
`effect of environmental odors emanating from
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`

`commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby
`residents. Brain Res Bull. 1995;37(4):369-75.
`
`exposures in a cohort of rural Iowa children. Environ
`Health Perspect. 2005 Mar;113(3):350-6.
`
`41. Thu K, Donham K, Ziegenhorn R, Reynolds S, Thorne
`PS, Subramanian P, et al. A control study of the
`physical and mental health of residents living near a
`large-scale swine operation Journal of Agricultural
`Safety and Health. 1997;3(1).
`
`42. Wing S, Wolf S. Intensive livestock operations, health,
`and quality of life among eastern North Carolina
`residents. Environ Health Perspect. 2000
`Mar;108(3):233-8.
`
`43. Radon K, Peters A, Praml G, Ehrenstein V, Schulze A,
`Hehl O, et al. Livestock odours and quality of life of
`neighbouring residents. Ann Agric Environ Med.
`2004;11(1):59-62.
`
`44. Avery RC, Wing S, Marshall SW, Schiffman SS. Odor
`from industrial hog farming operations and mucosal
`immune function in neighbors. Arch Environ Health.
`2004 Feb;59(2):101-8.
`
`45. Merchant JA, Naleway AL, Svendsen ER, Kelly KM,
`Burmeister LF, Stromquist AM, et al. Asthma and farm
`
`46. Bullers S. Environmental stressors, perceived control,
`and health: The case of residents near large-scale hog
`farms in eastern North Carolina. Hum Ecol. 2005
`Feb;33(1):1-16.
`
`47. Mirabelli MC, Wing S, Marshall SW, Wilcosky TC.
`Asthma symptoms among adolescents who attend
`public schools that are located near confined swine
`feeding operations. Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):E66-
`E75.
`
`48. Sigurdarson ST, Kline JN. School proximity to
`concentrated animal feeding operations and prevalence
`of asthma in students. Chest. 2006 Jun;129(6):1486-91.
`
`49. Radon K, Schulze A, Ehrenstein V, van Strien RT,
`Praml G, Nowak D. Environmental exposure to confined
`animal feeding operations and respiratory health of
`neighboring residents. Epidemiology. 2007
`May;18(3):300-8.
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`

`Appendix A: Methodology
`
`Databases: Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Medline, BIOSIS Previews, LISTA EBSCO, Google Scholar.
`
`Citation tracing was also used to track the published studies on this topic.
`
`Search terms:
`
`Key words: manure, animal, livestock, air, emission*, community, public, health, resident*
`
`Criteria for inclusion: Peer-reviewed literatures, reports, and statistics with topic on or closely associated with
`animal manure emissions and public health.
`
`Journal papers
`
`Reports
`
`Statistics
`
`Source
`
`Databases
`
`Preference
`Peer-reviewed
`Topic
`
`Date
`
`High
`
`Yes
`
`Manure management in
`agriculture. Emissions from
`manure management.
`Occupational health issue
`associated with manure
`management. Community
`health issue associated with
`manure management.
`
`No restrictions, up-to- date
`ones preferred
`
`Databases, Government and
`institute website
`
`Government website
`
`medium
`
`partial
`
`High
`
`n/a
`
`Manure management in
`agriculture. Occupational health
`issue associated with manure
`management.
`
`Livestock manure generation.
`Emission inventories
`
`Most up to date available
`
`Most up to date available
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`

`This document was produced by the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health in September
`2011.
`Permission is granted to reproduce this document in whole, but not in part.
`Photo credits: R-J-Seymour; licensed through iStockphoto
`Production of this document has been made possible through a financial contribution from the Public Health
`Agency of Canada.
`ISBN: 978-1-926933-23-8
`© National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health 2011
`200 – 601 West Broadway
`Vancouver, BC V5Z 3J2
`Tel.: 604-829-2551
`contact@ncceh.ca
`
`for Environmental Health
`
`0 National Collaborating Centre
`
`Centre de collaboration nationale
`en sante environnementale
`
`To provide feedback on this document, please visit www.ncceh.ca/en/document_feedback
`
`www.ncceh.ca
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 1049
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 10 of 10
`
`