ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing the impact of a negative air ionization system on particulate matter and gaseous pollutants in the swine farrowing environment.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Air quality on swine farms has long been a concern for both human and swine health as it has been previously linked with respiratory issues; the main cause being the inhalation of small airborne particulate matter (PM) < 10 μm in diameter. Negative ionizing systems have previously been successfully used to improve air quality in human residential- and commercial buildings as well in agricultural settings. However, less is known about the efficacy of negative ionizing systems in commercial swine farrowing environments. Thus, the objective of this study was to use a swine farrowing environment to evaluate the effects of a negative air ionization system on 1) the quantity of airborne gaseous and particulate matter, and 2) swine health and production parameters. Six farrowing rooms containing 60 sows each were installed with 30 negative ionization systems per room. Three out of six rooms were randomly allocated between active ionization (L-ON) or inactive ionization (L-OFF) between farrowing rounds (N = 4). For each round, measurements of PM2.5, PM10, Ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S), temperature, and humidity were collected twice a week, in the morning and afternoon at two heights, pig level (61 cm) and human level (152 cm). Pig performance metrics (parity, number of piglets born, number of live piglets born, piglet mortality, fostered piglets, and number of weaned pigs) were collected at the end of each batch. Comparisons between L-ON and L-OFF treatments were conducted by averaging room and day specific measurements for all days when rotating rooms shared contrasting treatments. Each room-specific L-ON treatment was then compared to all other L-OFF rooms using a linear regression model. No statistically significant differences were found between treatments for PM2.5 or PM10 at the pig nor human level. However, numerical reductions in the cumulative increase of PM2.5, and PM10 for L-ON rooms compared to L-OFF rooms were found in 60% of the L-ON rooms. One out of five L-ON rooms showed statistically slower buildup of NH3 concentrations compared to L-OFF rooms (P < 0.01) and 60% of the L-ON rooms had significantly slower buildup of H2S concentrations compared to L-OFF rooms (P < 0.01). No effect on production metrics were found between treatments. In conclusion, indications of improved air quality were found in this study, but given the complexity of these types of assessments, further work is needed to conclude the efficacy of negative ionization systems in commercial farrowing systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.