Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23562940›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2013

Land application of treated sewage sludge: community health and environmental justice.

Amy Lowman, Mary Anne McDonald, Steve Wing, Naeema Muhammad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Residents' experiences during a hydrogen sulfide crisis in Carson, California.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. "Ag-Gag" Laws: Evolution, Resurgence, and Public Health Implications.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. CAFOs and environmental justice: the case of North Carolina.Environmental health perspectives · 2013
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Amy LowmanDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA. amy_lowman@unc.edu
Mary Anne McDonald
Steve Wing
Naeema Muhammad

Funding

UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Stephanie Engel · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
Local Health Impacts of Land Application of Sewage SludgeR01ES015469 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WING, STEVEN B · 2007 to 2011
$2.4M
NIEHS NIH HHS 5R01ES015469-02NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES015469
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the United States, most of the treated sewage sludge (biosolids) is applied to farmland as a soil amendment. Critics suggest that rules regulating sewage sludge treatment and land application may be insufficient to protect public health and the environment. Neighbors of land application sites report illness following land application events.

objectivesWe used qualitative research methods to evaluate health and quality of life near land application sites.

methodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with neighbors of land application sites and used qualitative analytic software and team-based methods to analyze interview transcripts and identify themes.

resultsThirty-four people in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia responded to interviews. Key themes were health impacts, environmental impacts, and environmental justice. Over half of the respondents attributed physical symptoms to application events. Most noted offensive sludge odors that interfere with daily activities and opportunities to socialize with family and friends. Several questioned the fairness of disposing of urban waste in rural neighborhoods. Although a few respondents were satisfied with the responsiveness of public officials regarding sludge, many reported a lack of public notification about land application in their neighborhoods, as well as difficulty reporting concerns to public officials and influencing decisions about how the practice is conducted where they live.

conclusionsCommunity members are key witnesses of land application events and their potential impacts on health, quality of life, and the environment. Meaningful involvement of community members in decision making about land application of sewage sludge will strengthen environmental health protections.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthSewageAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaQualitative ResearchSocial JusticeSouth CarolinaVirginiaWaste Disposal, FluidSewage

Identifiers

PMID23562940
PMCPMC3673187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.