Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Air-quality-related health damages of maize

Nature Sustainability volume 2, pages 397–403 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Agriculture is essential for feeding the large and growing world population, but it can also generate pollution that harms ecosystems and human health. Here, we explore the human health effects of air pollution caused by the production of maize—a key agricultural crop that is used for animal feed, ethanol biofuel and human consumption. We use county-level data on agricultural practices and productivity to develop a spatially explicit life-cycle-emissions inventory for maize. From this inventory, we estimate health damages, accounting for atmospheric pollution transport and chemistry, and human exposure to pollution at high spatial resolution. We show that reduced air quality resulting from maize production is associated with 4,300 premature deaths annually in the United States, with estimated damages in monetary terms of US$39 billion (range: US$14–64 billion). Increased concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are driven by emissions of ammonia—a PM2.5 precursor—that result from nitrogen fertilizer use. Average health damages from reduced air quality are equivalent to US$121 t−1 of harvested maize grain, which is 62% of the US$195 t−1 decadal average maize grain market price. We also estimate life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of maize production, finding total climate change damages of US$4.9 billion (range: US$1.5–7.5 billion), or US$15 t−1 of maize. Our results suggest potential benefits from strategic interventions in maize production, including changing the fertilizer type and application method, improving nitrogen use efficiency, switching to crops requiring less fertilizer, and geographically reallocating production.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: County-level US maize production.
Fig. 2: Emissions per square kilometre of primary PM2.5 and secondary PM2.5 precursors from US maize production.
Fig. 3: PM2.5 impacts of US maize production.
Fig. 4: Illustrative results of PM2.5 impact assessment using the top maize-producing county in each of the top five maize-producing states.
Fig. 5: Production-weighted national average human mortality per million tonnes of maize produced, by pollutant and supply chain stage.
Fig. 6: County-level per-tonne monetized damages as a result of US maize production at a VSL of US$9.1 million (2017$) and GHGs at a SCC of US$43 (2017$) per tonne of CO2e.
Fig. 7: GHG emissions per tonne of maize produced.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data supporting the findings of this study beyond those found in the Supplementary Information are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Smith, P. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 812–922 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  2. Tilman, D. et al. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292, 281–284 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lelieveld, J., Evans, J., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D. & Pozzer, A. The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature 525, 367–371 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bauer, S., Tsigaridis, K. & Miller, R. Significant atmospheric aerosol pollution caused by world food cultivation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 5394–5400 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Foley, J. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pope, C. A. & Dockery, D. Health effects of fine particulate pollution: lines that connect. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 56, 709–742 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388, 1659–1724 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Graff Zivin, J. & Neidell, M. Air pollution’s hidden impacts. Science 359, 39–40 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tessum, C., Marshall, J. & Hill, J. A spatially and temporally explicit life cycle inventory for gasoline and ethanol in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 11408–11417 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith, T. et al. Subnational mobility and consumption-based environmental accounting of US corn in animal protein and ethanol supply chains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E7891–E7899 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tessum, C., Hill, J. & Marshall, J. InMAP: a model for air pollution interventions. PLoS ONE 12, 0176131 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Green, T., Kipka, H., David, O. & McMaster, G. Where is the USA Corn Belt, and how is it changing? Sci. Total Environ. 618, 1613–1618 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014); https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/ee-0568-50.pdf

  15. Quick Stats (US Department of Agriculture, 2018); https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov

  16. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government, 2016); https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf

  17. Fertilizer Use and Price (US Department of Agriculture, 2018); https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx

  18. 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017); https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data

  19. Pan, B., Kee Lam, S., Mosier, A., Luo, Y. & Chen, D. Ammonia volatilization from synthetic fertilizers and its mitigation strategies: a global synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 232, 283–289 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pinder, R., Adams, P. & Pandis, S. Ammonia emission controls as a cost-effective strategy for reducing atmospheric particulate matter in the Eastern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 380–386 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. World of Corn 2018 (National Corn Growers Association, 2018); http://www.worldofcorn.com/pdf/NCGA_WOC2018_Metric.pdf

  22. Hill, J. et al. Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 2077–2082 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4146–4151 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Springmann, M. et al. Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 69–74 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. GBD Results Tool (Univ. Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2017); http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool

  28. Brandt, J. et al. Contribution from the ten major emission sectors in Europe and Denmark to the health-cost externalities of air pollution using the EVA model system—an integrated modelling approach. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 7725–7746 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Paulot, F. & Jacob, D. Hidden cost of U.S. agricultural exports: particulate matter from ammonia emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 903–908 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Giannadaki, D., Giannakis, E., Pozzer, A. & Lelieveld, J. Estimating health and economic benefits of reductions in air pollution from agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 622–623, 1304–1316 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. GREET Model (Argonne National Laboratory, 2018); https://greet.es.anl.gov

  32. Tessum, C., Hill, J. & Marshall, J. spatialmodel/inmap: v1.5.1 Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/2549859 (2018).

  33. Tessum, C., Hill, J. & Marshall, J. Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18490–18495 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Thakrar, S., Goodkind, A., Tessum, C., Marshall, J. & Hill, J. Life cycle air quality impacts on human health from potential switchgrass production in the United States. Biomass Bioener. 114, 73–82 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang, Y., Heath, G., Carpenter, A. & Fisher, N. Air pollutant emissions inventory of large-scale production of selected biofuels feedstocks in 2022. Biofuel. Bioprod. Bior. 10, 56–69 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wade, T., Claassen, R. & Wallander, S. Conservation-Practice Adoption Rates Vary Widely by Crop and Region (Economic Information Bulletin No. 147, US Department of Agriculture, 2015).

  37. Crop Acreage Data (US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 2018); https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/efoia/electronic-reading-room/frequently-requested-information/crop-acreage-data/index

  38. ARMS Data:Economic Research Service (ERS) Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) Tailored Reports (US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2018); https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/arms-farm-financial-and-crop-production-practices/arms-data/

  39. MacDonald, J., Ribaudo, M., Livingston, M., Beckman, J. & Huang, W. Manure Use for Fertilizer and for Energy (2009); https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/46168/PDF

  40. Davidson, C. et al. CMU Ammonia Model v3.6 (The Environmental Institute, Carnegie Mellon Univ., 2004).

  41. Lark, T., Salmon, J. & Gibbs, H. Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuels policies in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 044003 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lu, C. et al. Increasing carbon footprint of grain crop production in the US Western Corn Belt. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 124007 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Manson, S., Schroeder, J., Van Riper, D. & Ruggles, S. IPUMS NHGIS: version 12.0 (Univ. Minnesota, 2017); https://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V12.0

  44. American FactFinder (US Census Bureau, 2018); https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

  45. Krewski, D. et al. Extended Follow-up and Spatial Analysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality Report 140 (Health Effects Institute, 2009); https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/Krewski140.pdf

  46. Paolella, D. et al. Effect of model spatial resolution on estimates of fine particulate matter exposure and exposure disparities in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 5, 436–441 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Tessum, C., Hill, J. & Marshall, J. Twelve-month, 12 km resolution North American WRF-Chem v3.4 air quality simulation: performance evaluation. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 957–973 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tessum, C., Hill, J. & Marshall, J. InMAP: Intervention Model for Air Pollution: health impacts of air pollution: a tool to understand the consequences. InMAP http://spatialmodel.com/inmap/ (2018).

  49. Tessum, C., Hill, J. & Marshall, J. Evaluation data for the Intervention Model for Air Pollution (InMAP) version 1.3. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/848824 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Noe, K. Colgan and N. Domingo for assistance. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy (EE0004397), US Department of Agriculture (2011-68005-30411 and MIN-12-083), University of Minnesota Grand Challenges Initiative and Wellcome Trust (Our Planet Our Health; Livestock, Environment and People (LEAP); 205212/Z/16/Z). This publication was also developed as part of the Center for Clean Air Climate Solutions, which was supported under Assistance Agreement number R835873 awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It has not been formally reviewed by the EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the agency. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, USA

    Jason Hill, Sumil Thakrar, Timothy Smith, Natalie Hunt, Kimberley Mullins & Michael Clark

  2. Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Andrew Goodkind

  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Christopher Tessum & Julian Marshall

  4. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, USA

    David Tilman, Stephen Polasky & Michael Clark

  5. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    David Tilman

  6. Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, USA

    Stephen Polasky

  7. Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Michael Clark

  8. Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Michael Clark

Authors
  1. Jason Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Goodkind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Tessum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sumil Thakrar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Tilman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephen Polasky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Timothy Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Natalie Hunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kimberley Mullins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michael Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Julian Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.H. and A.G. conceived and designed the experiments. J.H., A.G. and C.T. performed the experiments. J.H., A.G., C.T. and D.T. analysed the data. J.H., A.G., C.T., S.T., N.H. and K.M. contributed materials/analysis tools. All authors wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Hill.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–3

Supplementary Dataset 1

County-specific lifecycle emissions model inputs. This file contains the input values for use in GREET-cst. Included are maize yields, fertilizer rates and types, manure application rates, pesticide rates and types, machinery requirements and fugitive dust emissions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hill, J., Goodkind, A., Tessum, C. et al. Air-quality-related health damages of maize. Nat Sustain 2, 397–403 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0261-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0261-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene