MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406969101 · doi:10.1289/ehp14456

The Adverse Health Effects of Air Pollution from Sugarcane Burning: A Scoping Review of Observational and Experimental Evidence

2025· review· en· W4406969101 on OpenAlexaff
Andres Manrique, Kayan Clarke, Sarah Bisesi, Farah A. Arosemena, Eric S. Coker, Tara Sabo‐Attwood

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSugarcane Cultivation and Processing
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease Control
FundersUniversity of Florida
KeywordsObservational studyAir pollutionEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental healthPollutionAdverse effectEnvironmental chemistryMedicineToxicologyChemistryBiologyPharmacologyPathologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sugarcane burning is an agricultural practice that is implemented to increase sugar yields. However, sugarcane burning produces air pollutants associated with adverse health outcomes. This review summarizes the current knowledge of the defined exposures and health effects associated with sugarcane burning and identifies research gaps. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web-of-Science to identify peer-reviewed literature on health and exposure investigations associated with air pollution from burning sugarcane. Studies were eligible if they included both an air pollution measurement and a health outcome assessment in human workers and surrounding communities or animal studies associated with sugarcane burning. RESULTS: )] and total suspended particulates (TSP). Of the observational studies, 42% (8/19) were prospective cohorts, and 58% (11/19) employed an ecological design and applied variable exposure assessment methods. The experimental studies all used rodent models with varied exposure routes and pollutants. DISCUSSION: This review supports a well-documented link between air pollution from sugarcane burning and adverse health effects in workers and neighboring communities with respiratory, renal, and cardiovascular health effects; however, several knowledge gaps were identified, including the need for expansion of studies geographically, application of more advanced exposure science to characterize and quantify sugarcane emission components, probing of emerging health effects (i.e., kidney disease) and associated biomarkers, and evaluation of vulnerable populations that neighbor sugarcane operations. Furthermore, pairing exposure measurements and health assessments in the same study would increase our knowledge and better inform policies to improve the health of workers and communities impacted by sugarcane burning. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14456.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicSugarcane Cultivation and ProcessingFrench-language works237,207