Literature DB >> 17268924

Monitoring of aerial pollutants emitted from Swine houses in Korea.

Ki Y Kim1, Han J Ko, Hyeon T Kim, Yoon S Kim, Young M Roh, Cheol M Lee, Chi N Kim.   

Abstract

This on-site survey study was performed to determine the concentrations and emissions of aerial contaminants in the different types of swine houses in Korea and then to present beneficial information available for Korean pig producers to manage optimal air quality in swine house. The swine houses investigated in this research were selected based on three criteria; manure removal system, ventilation mode and growth stage of swine. Mean concentrations of aerial pollutants in swine houses were 8 ppm for ammonia, 300 ppb for hydrogen sulfide, 2 mg m(-3) for total dust, 0.6 mg m(-3) for respirable dust, 4 log(cfu m(-3)) for total airborne bacteria and 3 log(cfu m(-3)) for total airborne fungi, respectively. Mean emissions based on pig (liveweight; 75 kg) and area (m(2)) were 250 and 340 mg h(-1) for ammonia, 40 and 50 mg h(-1) for hydrogen sulfide, 40 and 50 mg h(-1) for total dust, 10 and 15 mg h(-1) for respirable dust, 1.0 and 1.3 log(cfu) h(-1) for total airborne bacteria and 0.7 and 1.0 log(cfu) h(-1) for total airborne fungi, respectively. In general concentrations and emissions of gases were relatively higher in the swine houses managed with deep-pit manure system with slats and mechanical ventilation mode than the different swine housing types whereas those of particulates and bioaerosol were highest in the naturally ventilated swine houses with deep-litter bed system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17268924     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-006-9578-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  8 in total

1.  Air contaminants in different European farming environments.

Authors:  Katja Radon; Brigitta Danuser; Martin Iversen; Eduard Monso; Christoph Weber; Jörg Hartung; Kelley Donham; Urban Palmgren; Dennis Nowak
Journal:  Ann Agric Environ Med       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.447

2.  Microbial validation of vent filters.

Authors:  J H Robertson; W R Frieben
Journal:  Biotechnol Bioeng       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 4.530

3.  Airborne dust, ammonia, microorganisms, and antigens in pig confinement houses and the respiratory health of exposed farm workers.

Authors:  B Crook; J F Robertson; S A Glass; E M Botheroyd; J Lacey; M D Topping
Journal:  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J       Date:  1991-07

4.  Study on exposure of pig farm workers to bioaerosols, immunologic reactivity and health effects.

Authors:  B Mackiewicz
Journal:  Ann Agric Environ Med       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.447

5.  Kinetic explanation for accumulation of nitrite, nitric oxide, and nitrous oxide during bacterial denitrification.

Authors:  M R Betlach; J M Tiedje
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1981-12       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Health effects of organic dusts in the farm environment. Report on prevention and control.

Authors:  S Clark
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.214

7.  Temporal and spatial distributions of aerial contaminants in an enclosed pig building in winter.

Authors:  Ki Y Kim; Han J Ko; Kyung J Lee; Jae B Park; Chi N Kim
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2004-12-08       Impact factor: 6.498

8.  Exposure assessment to airborne endotoxin, dust, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide in open style swine houses.

Authors:  C W Chang; H Chung; C F Huang; H J Su
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2001-08
  8 in total
  6 in total

1.  Manure removal system influences the abundance and composition of airborne biotic contaminants in swine confinement buildings.

Authors:  Priyanka Kumari; Hong Lim Choi
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Profiling of cell stress proteins reveals decreased expression of enzymatic antioxidants in tracheal epithelial tissue of pigs raised indoors.

Authors:  Jenora T Waterman; Chakia J McClendon; Rohit S Ranabhat; KeYona T Barton
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 4.060

3.  Self-reported work activities, eye, nose, and throat symptoms, and respiratory health outcomes among an industrial hog operation worker cohort, North Carolina, USA.

Authors:  Vanessa R Coffman; Devon J Hall; Nora Pisanic; David C Love; Maya Nadimpalli; Meredith McCormack; Marie Diener-West; Meghan F Davis; Christopher D Heaney
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 3.079

Review 4.  The Use of Bioaerosol Sampling for Airborne Virus Surveillance in Swine Production Facilities: A Mini Review.

Authors:  Benjamin D Anderson; John A Lednicky; Montserrat Torremorell; Gregory C Gray
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2017-07-27

5.  Hydrogen sulfide exposure in an adult male.

Authors:  Bassam Doujaiji; Jaffar A Al-Tawfiq
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.526

6.  Ambient bioaerosol distribution and associated health risks at a high traffic density junction at Dehradun city, India.

Authors:  Sandeep Madhwal; Vignesh Prabhu; Sangeeta Sundriyal; Vijay Shridhar
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 2.513

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.