Pulmonary Dysfunction Augmenting Bacterial Aerosols in Leather Tanneries of Punjab, Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Particulate matter–associated microbes in the workplace are a burning issue in occupational toxicology. Studies have reported on respiratory infections among tannery cohorts. This study uniquely presents measurements of airborne bacterial concentrations associated with varied particulate-matter sizes, their exposure, and consequent severity in occupational respiratory problems, all for different microenvironments within leather tanneries. Methods: Analyses included molecular identification of isolates, computation of mass median aerodynamic diameter of aerosols, tannery process–exposure dose (TPED) to bacterial aerosols, and spirometry and symptom assessment of impaired pulmonary function. Results: The highest bacterial concentrations were for rawhide treatment and finishing units, showing 3.6× 10 3 and 3.7× 10 3 CFU/m 3 , respectively. Identified bacterial species included Ochrobactrum pseudogrignonense , Neisseria bacilliformis , Enterobacter cloacae, Alcaligenes faecalis , Klebsiella pneumoniae , and Corynebacterium spp. Maximum and minimum values of mass median aerodynamic diameter were 8.3 μm and 0.65 μm for buffing and snuffing and production units, respectively. The highest TPED was 1,516.9 CFU/kg for finishing units. Respiratory symptoms in order of incidence were dyspnea > phlegm > cough > wheezing and tachypnea (equivalent). Bronchodilator measurements of FEV 1 , FVC, and PEF represent decline in lung function. Of 26 patients identified with COPD, most were working in rawhide treatment. Conclusion: We conclude that exposure–infection synergy is also a cause of pulmonary ailments and COPD development, rather than the better-known exposure–smoking synergy. Keywords: respiratory symptoms, bacteria, lung function, COPD, tannery process, MMAD, infection, airborne
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".