Kanankege Kaushi S T, Kandwal Rashmi, Perez Andres M
Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN,United States.
Independent Researcher, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Front Vet Sci. 2025 Apr 30;12:1552028. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1552028. eCollection 2025.
Proximity to swine farms is often used as a surrogate in exposure assessments, allowing for the relative quantification of potential pollutant dispersion, odor intensity, and health impacts on neighboring communities. However, defining exposure is complex, and the resulting risk profiles can vary depending on the definition used.
To quantify the spatially based exposure of surrounding communities to swine farms in North Carolina, three spatially explicit metrics were developed at the census tract-level: IDx1: number of households within 1-mile from a hog farm, IDx2: Co-kriging using the number of hogs and manure lagoons, and IDx3: hog density per square mile. Then, the correlation between these indices and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and Environmental Justice Index (EJI), which are generalized vulnerability measures, was evaluated to assess direct impact from swine farms versus multiple stressors.
The three indices differed visually, with IDx3 strongly correlated with IDx1 (0.8) and moderately correlated with IDx2 (0.4). CDC EJI and SVI were not prominently correlated with any of the swine-farm specific indices (≤0.3) indicating limited overlap. The correlation between swine-farm-specific indices and CDC SVI was slightly pronounced in rural areas indicating socially vulnerable populations are more likely to live near swine farming areas in rural census tracts. Having swine farm-specific indices offers a more tailored and nuanced understanding of the potential health and environmental risks. However, the differences between the maps and the varying correlations underscored how different definitions of exposure can yield distinct narratives about which neighborhoods are at risk. Defining and measuring potential exposure, considering factors like proximity, duration, frequency, vulnerability, and cumulative impact, is highly challenging.
The study emphasizes the need for a hierarchical framework to quantify and compare environmental exposures, addressing risk-modifying factors and individual-level exposure across space and time before implying direct exposure risks. This approach enables more informed planning for targeted solutions and fosters collaboration among stakeholders, facilitating critical discussions on integrated One Health solutions.
在暴露评估中,靠近养猪场常被用作一种替代指标,用于相对量化潜在污染物扩散、气味强度以及对周边社区的健康影响。然而,定义暴露是复杂的,并且根据所使用的定义,所得出的风险概况可能会有所不同。
为了量化北卡罗来纳州周边社区在空间上对养猪场的暴露情况,在人口普查区层面开发了三个空间明确的指标:IDx1:距离养猪场1英里范围内的家庭数量;IDx2:利用猪的数量和粪便泻湖进行协同克里金法分析;IDx3:每平方英里的猪密度。然后,评估这些指标与疾病控制和预防中心(CDC)的社会脆弱性指数(SVI)和环境正义指数(EJI)(这两个是广义的脆弱性衡量指标)之间的相关性,以评估养猪场与多种压力源的直接影响。
这三个指标在视觉上有所不同,IDx3与IDx1高度相关(0.8),与IDx2中度相关(0.4)。CDC的EJI和SVI与任何养猪场特定指标均无显著相关性(≤0.3),表明重叠有限。养猪场特定指标与CDC的SVI之间的相关性在农村地区略显明显,这表明社会脆弱人群更有可能居住在农村人口普查区的养猪场附近。拥有养猪场特定指标能对潜在的健康和环境风险提供更有针对性和细致入微的理解。然而,地图之间的差异以及不同的相关性凸显了暴露的不同定义如何能产生关于哪些社区处于风险中的不同描述。考虑到诸如接近程度、持续时间、频率、脆弱性和累积影响等因素来定义和衡量潜在暴露极具挑战性。
该研究强调需要一个分层框架来量化和比较环境暴露,在暗示直接暴露风险之前,应对风险修正因素以及跨空间和时间的个体层面暴露情况。这种方法能够为有针对性的解决方案进行更明智的规划,并促进利益相关者之间的合作,推动关于综合“同一健康”解决方案的关键讨论。