Assessment of Dust and Endotoxin Levels in the Working Environment of Dutch Pig Farmers: A Preliminary Study

Attwood, P.; Versloot, Pieter; Heederik, Dick; Wit, Rutger de; Boleij, J.S.M.

doi:10.1093/annhyg/30.2.201

Cited by 23 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…EDCs may attract fine particles from a broader volume adjacent to the EDC, whereas coarse particles may only settle due to gravity from the column of air above the EDC. EDC cloths contain polyester, an electronegative material that easily attracts smaller particles but may have difficulty attracting the PM 2.5-10 fraction which contains the majority of endotoxin (Heinrich et al , 2003; Attwood et al , 1986; Monn et al , 1999). Another explanation may be that the PM 2.5-10 fraction is not easily extracted from EDCs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrostatic dust collectors compared to inhalable samplers for measuring endotoxin concentrations in farm homes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paired electrostatic dust collectors (EDCs) and daily, inhalable button samplers (BS) were used concurrently to sample endotoxin in 10 farm homes during 7-day periods in summer and winter. Winter sampling included an optical particle counter (OPC) to measure PM2.5 and PM2.5-10. Electrostatic dust collectors and BS filters were analyzed for endotoxin using the kinetic chromogenic Limulus amebocyte lysate assay. Optical particle counter particulate matter (PM) data were divided into two PM categories. In summer, geometric mean (geometric standard deviation) endotoxin concentrations were 0.82 EU/m3 (2.7) measured with the BS and 737 EU/m2 (1.9) measured with the EDC. Winter values were 0.52 EU/m3 (3.1) for BS and 538 EU/m2 (3.0) for EDCs. Seven day endotoxin values of EDCs were highly correlated with the 7-day BS sampling averages (r=0.70; p<0.001). Analysis of variance indicated a 2.4-fold increase in EDC endotoxin concentrations for each unit increase of the ratio of PM2.5 to PM2.5-10. There was also a significant correlation between BS and EDCs endotoxin concentrations for winter (r=0.67; p<0.05) and summer(r=0.75; p<0.05). Thus, EDCs sample comparable endotoxin concentrations to BS, making EDCs a feasible, easy to use alternative to BS for endotoxin sampling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrostatic dust collectors compared to inhalable samplers for measuring endotoxin concentrations in farm homes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using a gel clot Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay, they reported the endotoxin levels of 4.77-47.74 µg per gram of PM in two swine barns in the U.S. Midwest. Following their work, multiple monitoring efforts were made in the 1980s [35,36,38,108,312,313,319,320]. These early studies were often coupled with epidemiological surveys to further unravel or affirm the health effects of airborne endotoxins.…”

Section: Endotoxinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particulate Matter in Swine Barns: A Comprehensive Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Particulate matter (PM) represents an air quality management challenge for confined swine production systems. Due to the limited space and ventilation rate, PM can reach relatively high concentrations in swine barns. PM in swine barns possesses different physical, chemical, and biological characteristics than that in the atmosphere and other indoor environments. As a result, it exerts different environmental and health effects and creates some unique challenges regarding PM measurement and mitigation. Numerous research efforts have been made, generating massive data and information. However, relevant review reports are sporadic. This study aims to provide an updated comprehensive review of swine barn PM, focusing on publications since 1990. It covers various topics including PM characteristics, sources, measurement methods, and in-barn mitigation technologies. As PM in swine barns is primarily of biological origins, bioaerosols are reviewed in great detail. Relevant topics include bacterial/fungal counts, viruses, microbial community composition, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, antibiotic resistance genes, endotoxins, and (1→3)-β-D-glucans. For each topic, existing knowledge is summarized and discussed and knowledge gaps are identified. Overall, PM in swine barns is complicated in chemical and biological composition and highly variable in mass concentrations, size, and microbial abundance. Feed, feces, and skins constitute the major PM sources. Regarding in-barn PM mitigation, four technologies (oil/water sprinkling, ionization, alternation of feed and feeders, and recirculating air filtration) are dominant. However, none of them have been widely used in commercial barns. A collective discussion of major knowledge gaps and future research needs is offered at the end of the report.

show abstract