Supplementary Information for

Air quality-related health damages of food

Nina G. G. Domingo, Srinidhi Balasubramanian, Sumil K. Thakrar, Michael A. Clark, Peter J.
Adams, Julian D. Marshall, Nicholas Z. Muller, Spyros N. Pandis, Stephen Polasky, Allen L.
Robinson, Christopher W. Tessum, David Tilman, Peter Tschofen, Jason D. Hill*

*Correspondence to: hill0408@umn.edu.

This PDF file includes:

Figures S1 to S9
Tables S1 to S4

1
Reduced-complexity chemical transport models

AP3 (Air Pollution Emission Experiments and Policy v3) estimates per-tonne social costs of
emissions in all United States counties, drawing on data from nearly 10,000 distinct sources and
using the Climate Regional Dispersion Model (CRDM). CRDM predicts the transport of emissions
from source- to receptor-counties using average annual and seasonal meteorological inputs and
emissions. In addition to public annual deaths, AP3 also estimates damages from reduced yields
of agricultural crops and timber, reduced visibility, enhanced depreciation of human-made
materials, and lost recreation services (though public health costs make up nearly all of air quality
impacts) (1).

EASIUR (Estimating Air pollution Social Impact Using Regression) estimates seasonal and
annual public health costs through a regression model that uses the outputs of a traditional
chemical transport model, or CTM (CAMx). The models are built at three different elevation levels
using 36 km × 36 km grid cells in a 148 × 112 grid covering the contiguous United States. Though
EASIUR does not account for the air quality impacts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
outputs from InMAP and AP3 suggest VOC-related deaths are low (< 1% of total annual deaths
from agriculture) compared to those associated with other pollutants. Compared to CAMx,
EASIUR produces a mean fractional error of 10 to 30% for PM2.5, NH3, and SO2, and up to 50%
for NOx in some seasons (2).

InMAP (Intervention Model for Air Pollution) uses pre-processed physical and chemical
information derived from the outputs of a traditional CTM (WRF-Chem). InMAP leverages variable
grid sizes to allow for higher resolution in high-population areas and lower resolution in low-
population areas, reducing computational demands while allowing for highly resolved changes in
concentrations in urban areas. When compared to estimates calculated directly using WRF-
Chem, InMAP is able to recreate comprehensive predictions of annual average changes in PM2.5
concentrations, producing a population-weighted mean fractional bias (MFB) of −17% and
population-weighted R2 = 0.90 (3).

2
 NH 3

Primary PM2.5

o v nt
ho me
Pollutant

es
rti rnin by uip
NMVOCs

n
le
n

pl n
io
t k ic u tio

ap c tio
at
el ke ura
a
e

ic
D f a plic

id odu
p
st

lt
u
g wa

Pe iz er g
d-
o p

s t pr
se r a

us gr
lla k

e
T i t oc
NOx

Fe u
U iz e

F i ic
b
Fe e

ic
s

l
rti
ve
Li
SO2

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000

Emissions (t)

Fig. S1. Emissions of primary PM2.5 and secondary PM2.5 precursors (NH3, NOx, SO2, and
NMVOCs) from agriculture, for the contiguous United States.

3
 Primary PM2.5 NH3

Emissions
(t km-2)
12
4
2
NOx 0 SO2

NMVOCs

Fig. S2. Spatial distribution of emissions of primary PM2.5 and secondary PM2.5 precursors
(NH3, NOx, SO2, and NMVOCs) from the agricultural sector in the contiguous United States.

4
 NH 3

Primary PM2.5

ov nt
ho me
es
rti nin by uip
Pollutant

F e bu -up eq

n
F i kic ultu n

pl n
io
ic atio

ap c tio
d ral
NOx

at
e

ic
D f a plic

id du
st
g wa

Pe iz er g
o
o p

s t pr
se r a

us gr

el ke
lla k

e
r
T i t oc

e
Fe e
liz

ic
NMVOCs

l
t
rti
ve
Li

U
SO2

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

-1
Mortality (deaths yr )

Fig. S3. Annual premature deaths attributed to primary PM2.5 and secondary PM2.5
precursors (NH3, NOx, SO2, and NMVOCs) from the agricultural sector in the contiguous
United States.

5
 Primary PM2.5 NH3

Mortality
(deaths km-2 yr-1)
0.10
0.03
0.02
0.01
NOx 0.00 SO2

NMVOCs Total

Fig. S4. Spatial distribution of mortality attributed to primary PM2.5 and secondary PM2.5
precursors (NH3, NOx, SO2, and NMVOCs) from the agricultural sector in the contiguous
United States. For each county, the mortality shown is that occurring somewhere in the United
States as a result of emissions in that county; that is, these maps do not show where the impact
is experienced, but rather where it originates.

6
 A

5
2.
PM

s
C
y

VO
ar
im

M
O
3

x
H

SO
2
Pr

N
N

N
AP3
Model

EASIUR

InMAP

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Mortality (deaths yr-1)

ve t
oo en
m

s
Pe tiliz ing p b uip
eq

n
n

ic n
io
io

pl tio
F e bu ed- ral

at
at

ap c
te

el ic k ltu
ic

e du
as

r rn u
pl

F i t k ic u

id o
ap
w

i c pr
us agr
ck

er

s t er
o

ge

liz

of
st

d
rti
ve

lla

se
Fe
Ti
Li

AP3
Model

EASIUR

InMAP

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Mortality (deaths yr-1)

Fig. S5. Annual premature deaths attributed to primary and secondary PM2.5 shown by
model and (A) pollutant and (B) agricultural process.

7
 AP3

Mortality
(deaths km-2 yr-1)
0.15
0.05
EASIUR
0.00

InMAP

Fig. S6. Spatial distribution of mortality attributed to primary and secondary PM2.5 by
model and county. For each county, the mortality shown is that occurring somewhere in the
United States as a result of emissions in that county; that is, these maps do not show where the
impact is experienced, but rather where it originates.

8
 8,000
7,000

Mortality (deaths yr-1)

6,000
5,000
4,000
spring
3,000
winter
2,000
1,000 fall

summer
0
Annual Seasonal Annual Seasonal
Fertilizer application Livestock waste
(Synthetic, organic, (Confinement, handling,
and manure) and storage)

Fig. S7. Comparison of mortality estimates using the average annual or seasonal version
of the EASIUR model. Estimates are derived from NH3 emissions attributed to fertilizer
application and livestock waste, excluding other pollutants and processes.

9
 Crop
Corn Soybeans
8.0 × 10-5

Mortality (deaths kg-1 yr-1)

6.0 × 10-5
6.0 × 10-5
-5
4.0 × 10
4.0 × 10-5

2.0 × 10-5
2.0 × 10-5

0 0

Livestock
Dairy cattle Swine
Mortality (deaths head-1 yr-1)

6.0 × 10-4 1.5 × 10-4

4.0 × 10-4 1.0 × 10-4

2.0 × 10-4 0.5 × 10-4

0 0

Layer chickens Beef cattle

6.0 × 10-4
-5
2.0 × 10

1.5 × 10-5 4.0 × 10-4

1.0 × 10-5
2.0 × 10-4
0.5 × 10-5

0 0

Broiler chickens
1.5 × 10-6

1.0 × 10-6

0.5 × 10-6

Fig. S8. Per-unit county-level mortality attributed to PM2.5 directly emitted by commodity
production. Each boxplot divides data into five parts (excluding outliers): minimum, first quartile,
median, third quartile, and maximum. Outliers are presented as points. Values are expressed in
deaths kg-1 yr-1 for crops and deaths head-1 yr-1 for livestock.

10
 Average US

Beans and peas

Flexitarian (High red meat)
Dairy
Eggs
Flexitarian (High dairy) Fruit
Diet

Grains
Flexitarian Nuts and seeds
Oil
Poultry
Vegetarian
Red Meat
Sugar
Vegan
Vegetables

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Mortality (deaths yr-1)

Average US

Flexitarian (High red meat)

Flexitarian (High dairy)

Diet

Flexitarian

Vegetarian

Vegan

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000
Mortality (deaths yr-1)

Fig. S9. Annual premature deaths associated with different diets. (A) Mortality by food type.
(B) Mortality range by diet. Range in (B) represents diets composed of foods with per-serving
damages at the 5th and 95th percentile.

11
 Table S1. Annual PM2.5-related deaths by food. “–“ indicates dietary insignificant results (e.g.,
protein in butter or canola oil).

Food Deaths kg-1 yr-1 Deaths serving-1 Deaths g protein-1 Deaths kcal-1 yr-1
yr-1 yr-1
Almonds 8.29 × 10-8 2.32 × 10-9 4.11 × 10-9 1.44 × 10-11
Apples 1.26 × 10-9 1.57 × 10-10 6.28 × 10-9 2.41 × 10-12
Apricots 1.59 × 10-9 2.47 × 10-10 1.14 × 10-9 3.31 × 10-12
Asparagus 2.33 × 10-8 3.13 × 10-9 1.06 × 10-8 1.17 × 10-10
Barley 1.50 × 10-8 4.19 × 10-10 1.51 × 10-9 4.23 × 10-12
Beans 5.01 × 10-8 1.40 × 10-9 2.34 × 10-9 1.44 × 10-11
Beef 6.05 × 10-7 1.69 × 10-8 3.24 × 10-8 2.59 × 10-10
Blueberries 6.88 × 10-9 1.02 × 10-9 9.29 × 10-9 1.21 × 10-11
Broccoli 5.08 × 10-10 5.44 × 10-11 2.65 × 10-10 2.03 × 10-12
Buckwheat 3.15 × 10-9 8.83 × 10-11 2.38 × 10-10 9.20 × 10-13
Butter 4.12 × 10-7 5.77 × 10-9 – 5.77 × 10-11
Cabbage 8.26 × 10-10 1.47 × 10-10 6.45 × 10-10 3.30 × 10-12
Canola oil 9.99 × 10-9 1.40 × 10-10 – 1.13 × 10-12
Cantaloupes 4.17 × 10-9 6.42 × 10-10 2.08 × 10-9 9.10 × 10-12
Carrots 1.32 × 10-9 1.69 × 10-10 1.42 × 10-9 3.22 × 10-12
Cauliflower 3.00 × 10-10 3.21 × 10-11 1.56 × 10-10 1.20 × 10-12
Celery 4.98 × 10-11 5.48 × 10-12 – 3.56 × 10-13
Cheese 1.95 × 10-7 5.47 × 10-9 1.09 × 10-8 6.83 × 10-11
Cherries 1.86 × 10-8 2.57 × 10-9 1.76 × 10-8 2.96 × 10-11
Chicken 7.20 × 10-8 2.01 × 10-9 3.88 × 10-9 4.95 × 10-11
Corn 1.17 × 10-8 3.28 × 10-10 1.24 × 10-9 3.21 × 10-12
Cottonseed oil 6.48 × 10-8 9.07 × 10-10 – 7.33 × 10-12
Cranberries 2.33 × 10-9 2.33 × 10-10 5.98 × 10-9 5.07 × 10-12
Cucumbers 1.63 × 10-9 1.70 × 10-10 2.51 × 10-9 1.09 × 10-11
Eggplants 5.81 × 10-10 4.76 × 10-11 5.93 × 10-10 2.32 × 10-12
Eggs 1.31 × 10-7 7.12 × 10-9 1.04 × 10-8 9.96 × 10-11
Garlic 6.84 × 10-9 9.30 × 10-10 1.08 × 10-9 4.59 × 10-12
Grapes 1.21 × 10-8 1.87 × 10-9 1.50 × 10-8 2.13 × 10-11
Honeydew melons 4.89 × 10-9 7.53 × 10-10 2.45 × 10-9 1.07 × 10-11
Ice cream 4.69 × 10-8 3.10 × 10-9 1.34 × 10-8 2.26 × 10-11
Lentils 1.02 × 10-8 2.86 × 10-10 3.96 × 10-10 2.89 × 10-12
Lettuce 5.54 × 10-10 3.99 × 10-11 4.08 × 10-10 3.70 × 10-12
Milk 1.95 × 10-8 4.79 × 10-9 5.92 × 10-9 3.20 × 10-11
Milk, dry whole 1.49 × 10-7 6.39 × 10-9 5.64 × 10-9 1.29 × 10-11
Millet 1.88 × 10-8 5.26 × 10-10 1.70 × 10-9 4.96 × 10-12
Nectarines 1.23 × 10-9 1.90 × 10-10 1.35 × 10-9 3.16 × 10-12
Oats 2.27 × 10-8 6.36 × 10-10 1.35 × 10-9 5.84 × 10-12
Olive oil 1.18 × 10-7 1.65 × 10-9 – 1.33 × 10-11
Onions 1.14 × 10-9 1.83 × 10-10 1.04 × 10-9 2.86 × 10-12

12
Peaches 2.92 × 10-9 4.50 × 10-10 3.21 × 10-9 7.50 × 10-12
Peanut oil 8.49 × 10-8 1.19 × 10-9 – 9.61 × 10-12
Peanuts 7.01 × 10-9 1.96 × 10-10 4.60 × 10-10 1.07 × 10-12
Pears 1.23 × 10-9 1.81 × 10-10 3.40 × 10-9 2.15 × 10-12
Pecans 3.09 × 10-7 8.65 × 10-9 1.42 × 10-8 5.41 × 10-11
Peppers 8.89 × 10-10 1.32 × 10-10 1.03 × 10-9 2.96 × 10-12
Pistachios 1.12 × 10-7 3.13 × 10-9 5.51 × 10-9 1.99 × 10-11
Plums 1.84 × 10-8 3.04 × 10-9 2.63 × 10-8 4.00 × 10-11
Pork 4.56 × 10-7 1.28 × 10-8 2.15 × 10-8 3.40 × 10-10
Potatoes 2.94 × 10-9 8.23 × 10-11 1.45 × 10-9 3.82 × 10-12
Pumpkins 6.18 × 10-9 7.17 × 10-10 6.18 × 10-9 2.38 × 10-11
Rice 1.09 × 10-8 3.04 × 10-10 1.37 × 10-9 2.93 × 10-12
Rye 2.69 × 10-8 7.52 × 10-10 2.60 × 10-9 7.92 × 10-12
Sheep and lamb 1.67 × 10-6 4.68 × 10-8 8.09 × 10-8 1.41 × 10-9
Sorghum 9.41 × 10-9 2.63 × 10-10 8.32 × 10-10 2.77 × 10-12
Soybean meal 1.51 × 10-8 4.24 × 10-10 4.15 × 10-10 3.39 × 10-12
Soybean oil 2.64 × 10-8 3.69 × 10-10 – 2.98 × 10-12
Squash 3.46 × 10-9 4.01 × 10-10 3.46 × 10-9 1.33 × 10-11
Strawberries 4.15 × 10-9 6.31 × 10-10 6.19 × 10-9 1.30 × 10-11
Sugarbeets 3.89 × 10-9 1.56 × 10-11 – 9.73 × 10-13
Sugarcane 9.45 × 10-8 3.78 × 10-10 – 2.36 × 10-11
Sweet corn 7.10 × 10-9 6.03 × 10-10 2.01 × 10-9 6.70 × 10-12
Sweet potatoes 2.71 × 10-9 7.58 × 10-11 1.72 × 10-9 3.15 × 10-12
Tomatoes 2.99 × 10-9 4.73 × 10-10 2.58 × 10-9 1.87 × 10-11
Turkey 7.69 × 10-8 2.15 × 10-9 4.14 × 10-9 5.28 × 10-11
Walnuts 1.68 × 10-7 4.69 × 10-9 1.10 × 10-8 2.56 × 10-11
Watermelons 5.35 × 10-9 8.24 × 10-10 8.78 × 10-9 1.78 × 10-11
Wheat 1.61 × 10-8 4.52 × 10-10 1.05 × 10-9 4.91 × 10-12

13
Table S2. Annual emissions and mortality caused by agricultural production in the 10
states where emissions of (A) primary PM2.5, (B) NH3, (C) NOx, (D) SO2, and (E) NMVOCs
lead to the highest total mortality. Deaths may occur within or outside of a given state.

A. Primary PM2.5

State 103 t emitted Deaths caused Deaths caused per

103 t emitted
Illinois 41.7 516 12.4
Iowa 49.3 354 7.2
Indiana 19.3 279 14.5
Ohio 16.0 279 17.4
Kansas 62.6 276 4.4
Florida 16.8 275 16.4
Texas 43.6 270 6.2
California 14.8 228 15.5
Minnesota 31.5 222 7.0
Missouri 26.6 200 7.5

B. NH3

State 103 t emitted Deaths caused Deaths caused per

103 t emitted
California 331.2 1,690 5.1
Iowa 248.0 921 3.7
North Carolina 147.6 884 6.0
Texas 256.8 794 3.1
Illinois 98.0 724 7.4
Florida 59.2 654 11.1
Ohio 53.1 582 11.0
Pennsylvania 34.4 548 15.9
Indiana 58.3 529 9.1
Minnesota 117.9 462 1.9

C. NOx

State 103 t emitted Deaths caused Deaths caused per

103 t emitted
California 26.0 53 2.1
Texas 47.2 46 1.0
Illinois 25.5 43 1.7
Iowa 27.4 36 1.3
Minnesota 21.9 28 1.3
Indiana 13.4 26 1.9
Ohio 11.3 24 2.1
Kansas 23.7 22 0.9
Nebraska 19.8 19 1.0
Missouri 15.1 19 1.2

14
 D. SO2

State 103 t emitted Deaths caused Deaths caused per

103 t emitted
Florida 2.4 10 4.1
Kansas 0.6 1 2.0
Georgia 0.4 1 2.6
Arkansas 0.3 1 2.8
California 0.1 1 4.5
Texas 0.3 1 2.1
Louisiana 0.3 1 2.3
Oklahoma 0.2 1 2.1
North Dakota 0.2 0 2.2
Mississippi 0.1 0 2.5

E. NMVOCs

State 103 t emitted Deaths caused Deaths caused per

103 t emitted
California 60.9 49 0.8
Florida 33.4 35 1.1
Illinois 27.2 15 0.5
Texas 26.3 10 0.4
Iowa 27.9 9 0.3
North Carolina 18.1 9 0.5
Ohio 7.7 6 0.8
Georgia 13.9 6 0.4
Indiana 9.1 6 0.6
Kansas 19.0 5 0.3

15
Table S3. Composition of alternative dietary patterns examined, reported as fraction of
total (A) kilocalories or (B) protein consumed from plant-source foods, dairy and eggs, or
different types of meat.

A. Kilocalories

Diet scenario Plants Dairy and Red meat Poultry

eggs
Current U.S. diet 61% 18% 13% 8%
Flexitarian 91% 6% 1% 2%
Flexitarian with high milk 85% 12% 1% 2%
Flexitarian with high red meat 89% 6% 3% 2%
Vegetarian 94% 6% 0% 0%
Vegan 100% 0% 0% 0%

B. Protein

Diet scenario Plants Dairy and Red Meat Poultry

Eggs
Current U.S. diet 28% 20% 33% 20%
Flexitarian 80% 10% 3% 7%
Flexitarian with high milk 71% 19% 3% 7%
Flexitarian with high red meat 73% 10% 11% 6%
Vegetarian 90% 10% 0% 0%
Vegan 100% 0% 0% 0%

16
Table S4. Results of literature review of interventions to reduce PM2.5-related emissions
from agriculture.

Agricultural Pollutant Intervention Type Emissions References

activity Reduction
Livestock waste NH3 Livestock feed 5% to 62% 4–11
Livestock waste NH3 Livestock housing 10% to 90% 9–13
Livestock waste NH3 Manure storage 30% to 100% 9–11
Livestock waste NH3 Manure spreading 0% to 99% 11,14,15
Fertilizer application NH3 Fertilizer type Up to 20% 9,10
Fertilizer application NH3 Application method 50% to 90% 9–11
Fertilizer application NH3 Amendment or 40% to 70% 9,11,13
inhibitor
Fertilizer application NH3 Timing Up to 5% 9,10
Tillage Primary All conservation 16
PM2.5 tillage
Field burning Primary Technology to Primary PM2.5: 1% to 17–19
PM2.5, NH3, replace field 100%
NOx, SO2 burning NH3: -35%
NOx: 94% to 100%
SO2: 20% to 100%
Field burning Primary Restrictions or ban Primary PM2.5: 46% 19,20
PM2.5, NH3, on field burning to 100%
NOx, SO2 NH3: -3%
NOx: 45%
SO2: 47%
Fuel combustion Primary Technology to Primary PM2.5: 40% 21–30
from agricultural PM2.5, NOx reduce combustion to 95%
equipment emissions NOx: 1% to 99%
Fuel combustion Primary Emissions Primary PM2.5: 40% 31,32
from agricultural PM2.5, NOx efficiency to 95%
equipment standards NOx: 90%

17
References
1. N. Muller, R. Mendelsohn, W. Nordhaus, Environmental accounting for pollution in the
United States economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 1649–1675 (2011).
2. J. Heo, P. Adams, H. Gao, Reduced-form modeling of public health impacts of inorganic
PM2.5 and precursor emissions. Atmos. Environ. 137, 80–89 (2016).
3. C. Tessum, J. Hill, J. Marshall, InMAP: A model for air pollution interventions. PLoS ONE.
12, e0176131 (2017).
4. S. Preece, N. Cole, R. Todd, B. Auvermann (2017) Ammonia Emissions from Cattle
Feeding Operations (Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, College Station, TX). Available at
http://baen.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/01/E-632.-Ammonia-Emissions-
from-Cattle-Feeding-Operations.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2020.
5. E. Hayes, et al., The influence of diet crude protein level on odour and ammonia
emissions from finishing pig houses. Bioresour. Technol. 91, 309–315 (2004).
6. N. Cole, et al., Influence of dietary crude protein concentration and source on potential
ammonia emissions from beef cattle manure. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 722 (2005).
7. N. Cole, P. Defoor, M. Galyean, G. Duff, J. Gleghorn, Effects of phase-feeding of crude
protein on performance, carcass characteristics, serum urea nitrogen concentrations, and
manure nitrogen of finishing beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 12, 3421–3432, (2006).
8. R. Todd, N. Cole, R. Clark, Reducing crude protein in beef cattle diet reduces ammonia
emissions from artificial feedyard surfaces. J. Environ. Qual. 35, 404–411 (2006).
9. S. Guthrie, et al., (2018) The impact of ammonia emissions from agriculture on
biodiversity (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA). Available at
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2600/RR2695/RAND_
RR2695.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2020.
10. J. Newell Price, et al., (2011) An inventory of mitigation methods and guide to their
effects on diffuse water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and ammonia emissions
from agriculture (Defra Project WQ0106). Available at
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=MitigationMethods-
UserGuideDecember2011FINAL.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2020.
11. S. Bittman, M. Dedina, C. Howard, O. Oenema, M. Sutton (2014) Options for ammonia
mitigation: Guidance from the UNECE Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen (Task Force
Reactive Nitrogen Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Edinburgh,
Wageningen and Aarhus). Available at http://www.clrtap-tfrn.org/sites/clrtap-
tfrn.org/files/documents/AGD_final_file.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2020.
12. L. Loyon, et al., Best available technology for European livestock farms: Availability,
effectiveness and uptake. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 166, 1–11 (2016).
13. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2015) Economic Commission for
Europe United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Framework Code for Good
Agricultural Practice for Reducing Ammonia Emissions. Available at
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/lrtap/Publications/Ammonia_SR136_28-
4_HR.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2020.
14. V. Eory, et al., (2018) On-farm technologies for the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions in Scotland (ClimateXChange, Edinburgh, UK). Available at
https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/research/projects/on-farm-technologies-for-the-
reduction-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-scotland/. Accessed May 30, 2020.
15. J. Webb, B. Pain, S. Bittman, J. Morgan, The impacts of manure application methods on
emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and on crop response—a review. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 137, 39–46 (2010).
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018) 2014 National Emissions Inventory Version
2 Technical Support Document (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC). Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
07/documents/nei2014v2_tsd_05jul2018.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2019.
17. C. Du, L. Kulay, O. Cavalett, L. Dias, F. Freire. Life cycle assessment addressing health
effects of particulate matter of mechanical versus manual sugarcane harvesting in Brazil.
Int J Life Cycle Assess. 23, 787–799 (2018).

18
18. P. Shyamsundar, et al., Fields on fire: Alternatives to crop residue burning in India.
Science 365, 6453 (2019).
19. M. Galdos, O. Cavalett, J. Seabra, L. Noguiera, A. Bonomi, Trends in global warming and
human health impacts related to Brazilian sugarcane ethanol production considering
black carbon emissions. Appl. Energy 104, 576–582 (2013).
20. O. Oenema, G. Velthof, M. Amann, Z. Klimont, W. Winiwarter, “Emissions from
agriculture and their control potentials”, (TSAP Report #3, DG-Environment of the
European Commission, 2012).
21. G. Xinqun, D. Dou, R. Winsor (2010) Non-Road Diesel Engine Emissions and
Technology Options for Meeting Them (ASABE Distinguished Lecture Series, Orlando,
FL). Available at
https://elibrary.asabe.org/data/pdf/6/nrde2010/2010%20Lecture%20Series%2034a.pdf.
Accessed May 30,2020.
22. Z. Chen, et al., Experimental investigation of the performance and emissions of diesel
engines by a novel emulsified diesel fuel. Energy Convers. Manag. 95, 334–341 (2015).
23. S. Palash, et al., Impacts of biodiesel combustion on NOx emissions and their reduction
approaches. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 23, 473–490, (2013).
24. I. Shancita, et al., A review on idling reduction strategies to improve fuel economy and
reduce exhaust emissions of transport vehicles. Energy Convers. Manag. 88, 794–807
(2014).
25. G. Larsson, P. Hansson, Environmental impact of catalytic converters and particle filters
for agricultural tractors determined by life cycle assessment. Biosyst. Eng. 109, 15–21
(2011).
26. H. Mousazadeh, et al., Life-cycle assessment of a Solar Assist Plug-in Hybrid electric
Tractor (SAPHT) in comparison with a conventional tractor. Energy Convers. Manag. 52,
1700–1710 (2011).
27. C. Liu, et al., Transparent air filter for high-efficiency PM 2.5 capture. Nat. Commun. 6,
6205 (2015).
28. R. Southard, R. Lawson, H. Studer, M. Brown. Modified almond harvester reduces
orchard dust. Calif. Agric. 51, 10–13 (1997).
29. W. Faulkner, Harvesting equipment to reduce particulate matter emissions from almond
harvest. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 63, 70–79 (2013).
30. E. Baticados, S. Capareda, A. Maglinao, Particulate matter emission factors using low
dust harvesters for almond nut-picking operations. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 69, 1304–
1311 (2019).
31. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (1998) Directive
97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Available at https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT%20/?uri=celex:31997L0068. Accessed May 30,
2020.
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Final regulatory analysis: control of
emissions from nonroad diesel engines (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC). Available at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-
vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-control-emissions-air-pollution-nonroad-diesel. Accessed
May 30, 2020.

19