A Systematic Review of Occupational Exposure to Hydrogen Sulfide in Livestock Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review summarizes the current state of knowledge in hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations within intensive livestock operations. The review was undertaken to better understand H2S concentrations in intensive livestock operations, in relation to the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit reduction to a 1 ppm time-weighted average (TWA). Several online academic databases were searched using two conceptual groups of search terms: "livestock" and "hydrogen sulfide." Industry gray literature was additionally identified via targeted searches of online agriculture-specific Web sites. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were performed to select articles reporting H2S measurements made within livestock facilities. Forty-five articles were included in this review. The bulk (70%) of articles described swine operations, whereas the remaining represented poultry and dairy operations. Although 14% of the articles described task-based monitoring of H2S, the majority of articles (86%) involved only area monitoring. Weighted means from all three livestock types were below 1 ppm, although swine operations displayed a wider range of exposure (from 0 to 97 ppm). Despite most mean task-based exposures being close to 1 ppm, the peak concentrations measurements may be higher during power washing (97 ppm) and miscellaneous tasks (11.4 ppm). This review provides a novel overview of H2S levels in intensive livestock operations, including information on task-based measurements. The review highlights numerous influences that produce a wide variability of H2S levels in intensive livestock operations. The review also highlights the need for research focused on personal monitoring of daily worker exposures to hydrogen sulfide in intensive livestock operations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".