CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 277Indoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureAir Quality and Health ImpactsOdor and Emission Control Technologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents.

Open access
Wing, S, Wolf, S·2000·Environmental Health Perspectives
DOI 10.1289/ehp.00108233PMC PMC1637983
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

People who live near industrial swine operations have reported decreased health and quality of life. To investigate these issues, we surveyed residents of three rural communities, one in the vicinity of an approximately 6,000-head hog operation, one in the vicinity of two intensive cattle operations, and a third rural agricultural area without livestock operations that use liquid waste management systems. Trained interviewers obtained information about health symptoms and reduced quality of life during the previous 6 months. We completed 155 interviews, with a refusal rate of 14%. Community differences in the mean number of episodes were compared with adjustment for age, sex, smoking, and employment status. The average number of episodes of many symptoms was similar in the three communities; however, certain respiratory and gastrointestinal problems and mucous membrane irritation were elevated among residents in the vicinity of the hog operation. Residents in the vicinity of the hog operation reported increased occurrences of headaches, runny nose, sore throat, excessive coughing, diarrhea, and burning eyes as compared to residents of the community with no intensive livestock operations. Quality of life, as indicated by the number of times residents could not open their windows or go outside even in nice weather, was similar in the control and the community in the vicinity of the cattle operation but greatly reduced among residents near the hog operation. Respiratory and mucous membrane effects were consistent with the results of studies of occupational exposures among swine confinement-house workers and previous findings for neighbors of intensive swine operations. Long-term physical and mental health impacts could not be investigated in this study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.00108233

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 277

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wing, S., & Wolf, S.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
ORCID
Wing, S
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2000-03-01
Volume
108
Issue
3
Pages
233-238
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
DOI
10.1289/ehp.00108233
PMC
PMC1637983
OpenAlex
W2151911443
Cited by
271
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 9
FWCI
6.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R25-ES08206-04, R25ES008206)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Process Chemistry and Technology › Odor and Emission Control Technologies
Keywords
cattle farming, rural residents, health symptoms, quality of life, respiratory symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, mucosal irritation, animal waste management, environmental exposure, eastern North Carolina
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Air Pollution, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Black or African American, Cattle, Environmental Exposure, Environmental Health, Female, Health Status, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, North Carolina, Poverty, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Residence Characteristics, Rural Health, Swine, Case-Control Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review