Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of an Ion-Associate Phase Formed In Situ from the Aqueous Phase by Adding Benzethonium Chloride and Sodium Ethylbenzenesulfonate for Microextraction
Next Article in Special Issue
Metabolomics Approach to Reveal the Effects of Ocean Acidification on the Toxicity of Harmful Microalgae: A Review of the Literature
Previous Article in Journal
E-Eye Solution for the Discrimination of Common and Niche Celery Ecotypes
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Endotoxins Affecting Human Health during Agricultural Practices: An Overview

Department of Agriculture Engineering, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli 791109, India
CASS Food Research Centre, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia
Department of Botany, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226007, India
Department of Forestry, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli 791109, India
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
AppliedChem 2023, 3(1), 11-31;
Received: 8 November 2022 / Revised: 13 December 2022 / Accepted: 14 December 2022 / Published: 22 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Toxicometabolomics: Recent Advances and Future Trends)


Agricultural operations and the processing sector generate dust laden with endotoxin in the workplace. Endotoxin, a pro-inflammatory agent, has adverse effects on health, especially in the lungs, as exposure to endotoxin reduces lung function capacity. Endotoxin exposure to workers and its harmful impact on the health of agricultural workers needs to be studied in detail for future interventions to reduce exposure to endotoxin. The review can help to identify the analytical methods used to determine endotoxin exposure in agriculture. A detailed study of the research articles published in the last two decades related to agriculture and allied fields was carried out. In the agricultural sector, Pantoea agglomerans, a Gram-negative bacterium, was predominantly present. The filters were stored at a temperature of −20 °C, and E. coli 055: B5 was the predominately used standard to analyze the endotoxin. The quantitative kinetic Limulus Amebocyte Lysate test was the most common detection method for quantifying endotoxin. Control strategies to reduce endotoxin exposure are also emphasized in this review.

1. Introduction

Agricultural operations engender dust in the atmosphere. Dust may be generated naturally or by human activities. Dust is generated during different operations in crop production due to interactions between machines and soil and between machines and plants and post-harvest processing. Dust is a heterogeneous mixture of organic and inorganic components based on its composition. Workers are exposed to different levels of dust in various occupational workplaces. Dust is categorized as inhalable, thoracic and respirable dust based on its particle size [1,2,3]. Airborne dust is usually inhaled through the nose or mouth.
According to the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the threshold limit values for respirable and inhalable dust are 3.0 and 10 mg m−3, respectively, and the occupational safety and health administration (OSHA) has permissible exposure limits of respirable and total dust of 5.0 and 15 mg m−3 [4]. The National Board of Occupational Safety and Health (NBOSH), Sweden, has recommended dust exposure limits for normal and organic dust of 10 mg m−3 and 5 mg m−3, respectively [5]. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, recommends a time-weighted average (TWA) limit, over 8 h of dust exposure, of 5 and 10 mg m−3 for respirable and total dust, respectively [3]. Different organizations around the world namely, ACGIH, OSHA, NBOSH and the Ministry of Labour, India, have different exposure limits for exposure to dust, and there is a need for a general standard for dust exposure that can be accepted internationally by all countries. Agriculture is highly assorted with various respiratory hazards from organic or inorganic particulates, chemicals, gas and other contagious agents [1]. During the cultivation of crops, dust is generated during field preparation, sowing/planting, plant protection activities, harvesting, threshing and post-harvest processing. Mołocznik & Zagórski [6] reported that the mean total dust concentration during field preparation and harvesting was higher than the recommended value of 10 mg m−3 [6]. Molocznik [2] testified that the harvesting of cereals using a combine contributes to the highest level of dust concentrations in agricultural operations, ranging from 31.7 to 72.9 mg m−3, with respirable dust constituting 3.9–8.8 mg m−3 [2]. Dewangan and Patil [3] measured the dust concentration in rice mills, oil mills, flour mills and tea industries and found that oil mills generate maximum dust compared to others. The mean values of respirable, thoracic, inhalable and total dust were 5.76, 35.65, 68.71 and 111.02 mg m−3, respectively [3]. The median personal inhalable cotton dust concentration in the textile industry in Shanghai, China, was 1.74 mg m−3 [7]. Dust exposure to workers in most agricultural operations and industry is above the recommended exposure limit. Thus, agricultural operation can either be a single or a combination source of air pollution to the atmosphere.
Endotoxin is present in organic dust generated during the crop cultivation [8], swine, poultry and grain industries [9]. Endotoxin is ubiquitous and represents significant components of bioaerosols [10]. Endotoxin is an essential biological component of airborne particulate matter and consists of active lipopolysaccharides (LPS) comprising cell wall components of the outer membranes of Gram-negative bacteria (GNB). The GNB cell envelope has two parts: the inner membrane surrounding the cytoplasm and the outer membrane providing a protective barrier to the external environment [11]. The outermost layer consisting of LPS of GNB is termed endotoxin. The general structure of endotoxin consists of lipid A, which is covalently attached to the molecule of the outer membrane via a substitution of the saccharide portion, an O-specific side chain linked in smooth LPS (S-form LPS) and an oligosaccharide containing up to fifteen monosaccharides [12]. LPS is the indicator for active infection in exposed workers. The O-specific side chain is the receptor for many bacteriophages, responsible for serological specificity [13]. The oligosaccharide helps to connect the O-specific side chain and lipid A. Lipid A is the most pyrogenic component of LPS [14], and it is hydrophobic in nature. Lipid A is the innermost part of LPS, and it is an acylated β-1′-6-linked glucosamine disaccharide [15]. There are high variations in structure within bacterial species [16]. There is a positive correlation between exposure to dust and endotoxin exposure [4,17]. According to the National Health Council of the Netherlands, the recommended threshold value of endotoxin exposure is 90 EU/m3 for 8 h of the working day [18,19]. The conversion of endotoxin concentration from ng/m3 to EU/m3 depends on the endotoxin standards used (E. coli), manufacturer and laboratories. The most common conversion factor for E. coli 055: B5 is 10 EU/m3 equals 1 ng/m3. Many studies have been performed for assessments of endotoxin in agriculture [5,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. There are some review papers on endotoxin exposure that have focused on different areas, such as agriculture work, animal housing and agricultural industries. These review papers have not focused on areas of sampling, the flow rate, types of dust and management and control strategies. An attempt is being made here to critically review the literature published in the last two decades to identify the source, occurrence of endotoxin in agriculture and cereal/fruit crops and detection techniques used to examine the health effects on the workers. This review also focuses on management and control strategies adopted in an agricultural setting to reduce endotoxin exposure for the safety and security of agricultural workers to improve their quality of life.

Effect of Dust and Endotoxin on Lungs

During agricultural operations, an enormous quantity of dust is generated and released into the environment, and this can be inhaled by the workers [20]. Dust is the heterogeneous mixture of organic and inorganic materials, which can contain endotoxin. The inhalation of dust can damage workers’ lungs, which may be termed occupational lung disease [26,27]. Respirable dust particles with an aerodynamic diameter below 5 µm may reach the tracheobronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs [8]. In India, the incidence of occupational lung disease ranges from 15% to 30% [28]. Agricultural workers usually work for at least 8 h in a dusty environment. With an increase in the duration of exposure to dust, the chances of respiratory morbidity increase [29,30,31]. A smaller fraction of dust enters the lungs via the windpipe and reaches the bronchi and bronchiole region via the windpipe and is discharged in the form of mucous generated by the goblet cells. The basic physiology of the respiratory system of humans includes attempts to expel the dust from the lungs [32]. The most common symptoms of the inhalation of dust are cough, dyspnea, wheezing, nasal irritation or wetting, irritation and redness of the eyes [28,32], chest tightness, morning phlegm, shortness of breath and morning cough [33]. These symptoms can be acute or chronic. Coughing is a part of natural respiratory physiology, a predictor and pioneer symptom of all respiratory diseases, and dyspnea is associated with cough, wheezing and rhinitis [33]. Dyspnea and wheeze indicate the severity of respiratory symptoms [34]. Due to the inhalation of dust in various occupational settings, spirometry measurements, such as the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and percentage of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1%), decrease significantly [28,33,35,36,37,38,39]. Rice mill workers have considerably higher incidences of chronic cough, wheezing with shortness of breath, and asthma than control volunteers [36]. The duration of dust exposure is proportional to the reduction in the peak expiratory flow rate [33,40]. Due to the inhalation of dust in rice mills, the ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) of workers is more than 70%, showing a restrictive type of abnormality in the lung [38,41]. When finer dust particles are inhaled, they may bypass the lung defense mechanisms and get stuck in the alveoli, which causes a localized inflammatory response [29,42]. The enzymes secreted during a localized inflammatory reaction disintegrate the alveolar septum, weaken lung defense systems and alter lung tissue repair mechanisms, causing significant lung deformities [29,42].
The organic dust fraction combines microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, viruses and protozoa and compounds like endotoxins, glucans, mycotoxins, peptidoglycans and enzymes [43,44,45]. Endotoxin is produced during bacterium disintegration to develop its biological activities [46]. The endotoxin is deposited in the lungs during the inhalation of airborne finer particles (dust) [47]. Airborne endotoxin is highly associated with adverse respiratory outcomes in exposed agricultural workers [48,49], and the concentration of endotoxin varies in agricultural environments [10,50]. Exposure to endotoxin exacerbates asthma, wheezing, a decline in lung function [51], shortness of breath, chest tightness [52], chronic bronchitis, bronchial hyper-responsiveness and cough [44,52]. Acute endotoxin inhalation induces flu-like symptoms, such as chills, coughing, mild fever and bronchoconstriction [53]. Exposure to endotoxin can also significantly change the body’s white blood cell count, resulting in immune function problems [41,54,55]. Endotoxin exposure may alter circulating levels of inflammatory and immunologic response markers that may be implicated in lung carcinogenesis [17,56]. Male poultry farmers have the highest rate of lung cancer when compared with that in farmers who do not rear animals [17]. The effect of endotoxin on allergic reactions may depend on the age of the workers [54]. Long-term exposure to endotoxin decreases the FEV1 and FVC [20,52,57] and reduces the FEV1 by up to 25% [53].
In agricultural settings, the inorganic portion of dust may contain crystalline and amorphous silica. Crystalline silica is the second most abundant element in the earth’s crust. Crystalline silica in agricultural settings can be present in the soil and husk of paddy and can be produced during the burning of plant residues like rice husk and sugarcane [58]. Exposure to airborne respirable crystalline silica causes pulmonary diseases, lung cancer and silicosis [59,60]. Silicosis is characterized by shortness of breath, cough, fever and bluish skin. Due to exposure to crystalline silica, there is a loss in lung function capacity, resulting in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [61]. The clinical symptoms caused by endotoxin exposure to the workers in different workplaces is shown in Figure 1.

2. Major Sources of Endotoxin

Endotoxin is produced by bacteria and contains lipopolysaccharide (LPS). The long-term inhalation of organic dust and bacteria and their endotoxins can trigger acute and chronic respiratory disorders. Agricultural activities generate bioaerosols that contain bacteria and fungi. The common available bacteria were isolated from different farms and settings are presented in Table 1.
P. agglomerans has the most endotoxic and allergenic properties [64] and is significant for work-related diseases [70,71]. P. agglomerans inhabits plants, soil, air and dust [72] and is abundantly present in onions, causing the rotting of onions in the center [73] and rotting of seeds and bolls of cotton [74,75,76]. Kullman et al. [77] reported that mesophilic and thermophilic bacteria were present in dairy barns and comprise Gram-positive bacteria (GPB) and GNB [77]. The mean personal exposure to bacteria and fungi in flower greenhouses in Denmark was 5.3 × 103 and 1.9 × 105 CFU/m3 [22]. The dominating GNB species was P. agglomerans, and the highest concentration of GNB was in flax farms (median: 112.2 thousand CFU/m3) and grain handling elevators (median value of measurement: 20.45 thousand CFU/m3) [78]. The threshing of pearl millet in outdoor farms was associated with the highest reported concentration of GNB, and the total microorganisms present were 108.75 × 105 CFU/m3 [23]. Dust collected from agricultural plants (gram, amaranth, rice, millet, sorghum, wheat and maize) showed a mean value of the measured concentration of GNB of 13.44 million CFU/m3, which accounted for 11.12% of total microorganisms present. Pantoea agglomerans species are the most dominating, producing strong endotoxin in India [65]. Agricultural workers exposed to mesophilic GNB can experience harmful occupational health effects. There is a need to establish an exposure limit for microflora accepted internationally [79,80].

3. Occurrences of Endotoxin in Agriculture

Agriculture can be related to the generation of enormous amounts of dust, of which organic dust from agricultural activities is the primary source of endotoxin. The endotoxin concentration is a significant concern in agricultural operations and sectors because the exposure value exceeds the recommended threshold value. The occurrence of endotoxin in different animal housing, food processing and other agricultural industries, such as hemp and cotton, are presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. The location of dust measurements was inside the farms or industries.
There is a variation in the occurrence of endotoxin in agricultural settings. This variation may be due to different sources of dust in agricultural settings. The harvesting of crops (nuts) using a mechanical harvester results in a higher concentration of dust [81,82]. Endotoxin has a significant correlation with the temperature [60,82,83]. The endotoxin concentration increases with an increase in the temperature [82] and relative humidity [60,84,85]. The endotoxin concentration is significantly higher on warmer days than on cold days [86,87]. In poultry and swine buildings, there is an increase in the dust and endotoxin concentration on winter days as ventilation is reduced to conserve heat [88]. The concentration of endotoxin in dust decreases due to the growth of fungi and bacteria in the livestock feed in poultry and swine farms [66]. The animal feeds may contribute to endotoxin contamination, but the major source of endotoxin inside animal houses is animal feces [88,89].
Endotoxin assessments depend on different sampling, extraction and analysis procedures followed [24]. The endotoxin concentration is higher during livestock farming than during crop farming [81]. The endotoxin concentration increases with an increase in the density of animals that are reared (pig) and a reduction in the frequency of cleaning in swine houses [88]. The concentration of endotoxin depends on the duration of exposure [88] and the type of workplace [90].
Table 2. Occurrence of endotoxin in animal housing around the world.
Table 2. Occurrence of endotoxin in animal housing around the world.
Location of SamplingCountryNo. of SamplesDust Concentration, mg/m3Fraction of DustAnalytical MethodEndotoxin
Range of Endotoxin ConcentrationAffected PopulationReference
Poultry farmSwitzerland367.01 (0.42–21.75)Total Dust (PM10)Kinetic-turbidimetric (KT) Limulus assay test257.58 ng/m318.99–1634.8 ng/m3Farmers[21]
Pig productionDenmark403.95 (1.11–13.75)Total Dust (PM10)KT Limulus assay test58.01 ng/m31.30–1101.7 ng/m3Farmers[21]
Pig productionGermany1005.00 (<0.09–76.7)Total Dust (PM10)KT Limulus assay test76.3 ng/m30.01–2090.1 ng/m3Farmers[21]
Floor-housed poultryCanada1819.56Total DustChromogenic-end point (CEP) LAL assay test1106.40 EU/m3NilPoultry workers[48]
Cage-housed poultryCanada1227.57Total Dust1291.47 EU/m3NilPoultry workers[48]
Poultry farmDenmark14AM: 5.7; GM: 3.5InhalableQuantitative kinetic chromogenic (QKC) LAL testAM: 1960 EU/m3; GM: 805 EU/m361–7090 EU/m3-[91]
Pig productionTaiwan, Republic of China95-RespirableKinetic Limulus assay test47 EU/m30.02–1643 EU/m3Worker[88]
Swine farmsSouth Korea360.505InhalableLAL Kinetic QCL812 EU/m3NilWorkers[92]
Swine farmsSouth Korea360.128RespirableLAL Kinetic QCL kit38.6 EU/m3NilWorkers[92]
Pig farmItaly18-PM10 (≤0.49 µm)Endpoint chromogenic LAL16.261 EU/m3--[93]
Pig rearing farmersDenmark354AM: 4.9; GM: 3.4Inhalable DustQKC LAL testAM: 6200; GM: 1500 EU/m313.69–370,000 EU/m3Pig farm workers[94]
Pig farmDenmark354AM: 4.9; GM: 3.4InhalableQKC LAL testAM: 6240; GM: 1490 EU/m313.69–374,000 EU/m3Worker[95]
Mixed farms (cattle and pigs)Denmark8AM: 2.9; GM: 1.9InhalableQKC LAL testAM: 900; GM: 448 EU/m313.69–2910 EU/m3Worker[95]
Cattle farmsDenmark124AM: 1.6; GM: 1.0InhalableQKC LAL testAM: 759; GM: 358 EU/m313.69–5890 EU/m3Worker[95]
DairyDenmark124AM: 1.6; GM: 1.0InhalableQKC LAL testAM: 760; GM: 360 EU/m313.69–5900 EU/m3Worker[95]
Dairy farmsFrance112AM: 0.42; GM: 0.24ThoracicKinetic LAL testAM: 318; GM: 128 EU/m32–8672 EU/m3Dairy farmers[96]
Dairy farmsIreland38AM: 1.7; GM: 1.5InhalableQKC LAL testAM: 197; GM: 128 EU/m326–900 EU/m3Worker[97]
Cattle feeding sectionUSA15AM: 1.272; GM: 0.9148InhalableRecombinant Factor C assayAM: 237.9; GM: 163.3 EU/m3-Worker[98]
Cattle miking sectionUSA91AM: 0.9304; GM: 0.7856InhalableRecombinant Factor C assayAM: 419.5; GM: 320.2 EU/m3-Worker[98]
Free stall dairyUSA4-Inhalable (<100 µm)Kinetic LAL129.3 EU/m3 -[99]
Dairy farmsUSA114GM: 0.67InhalableRecombinant Factor C (rfc) assayGM: 438 EU/m30.05–4430 EU/m3Dairy farm worker[100]
MinksDenmark7AM: 1.4; GM: 1.3InhalableQKC LAL testAM: 301; GM: 214 EU/m393–1050 EU/m3-[95]
Equine farmsUSA58-RespirableKinetic chromogenic (KC) LAL test-1.72–19.0 EU/m3-[101]
Equine farmsUSA58-InhalableKC LAL test-50.2–1024 EU/m3-[101]
Horse stablesThe Netherlands95AM: 2.4; GM:1.2InhalableQuantitative kinetic LAL methodAm: 2073; GM: 555 EU/m3<22.19–48,484 EU/m3Workers[102]
Livestock farmsThe Netherlands211AM: 0.023; GM: 0.0215PM10QKC LAL test0.657 EU/m3GM: 0.46–0.66 EU/m3Outside animal farms[103]
Table 3. Occurrence of endotoxin during different agricultural operations around the world.
Table 3. Occurrence of endotoxin during different agricultural operations around the world.
Location of SamplingCountryNo. of SamplesDust Concentration, mg/m3Fraction of DustAnalytical MethodEndotoxin
Range of Endotoxin ConcentrationReference
Rice millsMalaysia7979InhalableChromogenic Endpoint LALAM: 0.29 EU/m3-[20]
Grain, seed and legume production sectorThe Netherlands15GM: 2.5InhalableQKC LALGM: 2700 EU/m396–41,200 EU/m3[24]
Grain, seed and legume processing industriesThe Netherlands173GM: 1.4InhalableQKC LAL testGM: 500 EU/m32.3–149,060 EU/m3[24]
Animal processing industriesThe Netherlands81GM: 0.4InhalableQKC LAL testGM: 51 EU/m32–6230 EU/m3[24]
Seed processing industryThe Netherlands101GM: 1.6InhalableLAL assayGM: 1800 EU/m310–274,000 EU/m3[25]
Animal production sector (11 companies)The Netherlands27GM: 2.4InhalableQKC LAL testGM: 1190 EU/m362–8120 EU/m3[24]
Coffee processing factoriesTanzania193AM: 3.69; GM: 2.50Total DustKC LAL testAM: 8200; GM: 3500 EU/m342–75,083 EU/m3[104]
Hog load-out taskUSA197.14 (2.01–31.06)InhalableKC LAL assay test12,150 EU/m33497–84,357 EU/m3[105]
Swine building power washing13-ImpingerKC LAL assay test40,353 EU/m35401–180,864 EU/m3[105]
Table 4. Occurrence of endotoxin in other different agricultural industries around the world.
Table 4. Occurrence of endotoxin in other different agricultural industries around the world.
Location of SamplingCountryNo. of SamplesDust Concentration, mg/m3Fraction of DustAnalytical MethodEndotoxin ConcentrationRange of Endotoxin ConcentrationReference
Textile MillsShanghai, China561.74InhalableKC LAL assay test2226.83 EU/m3Nil[5]
Licensed private pesticide applicatorsUSA2040.90InhalableKC LAL assay test163 EU/m3-[17]
Textile sectorsNepal24AM: 2.34; GM: 0.81InhalableLAL assayAM: 4460; GM: 2160 EU/m386–26,300 EU/m3[19]
GreenhouseDenmark75AM: 0.36; GM: 0.25InhalableKinetic LALAm: 96.9; GM: 44.4 EU/m395% CI: 32.4–60.8[21]
Ornament plant or flower productionSpain37<0.09 (<0.09–0.88)Total Dust (PM10)KT Limulus assay test0.36 ng/m30.05–12.68 ng/m3[21]
Cotton mill (threshing of cotton)India225-LAL gel clot test0.625 µg/m3-[23]
Outdoor sickle harvesting of maize in farmIndia22.5-LAL gel clot test0.0625 µg/m3-[23]
Outdoor sickle harvesting of sorghum in farmIndia22.5-LAL gel clot test0.0625 µg/m3-[23]
Outdoor sickle harvesting of pearl millet in farmIndia27.5-LAL gel clot test0.625 µg/m3-[23]
Outdoor threshing of pearl milletIndia255-LAL gel clot test31.25 µg/m3-[23]
Outdoor threshing of maizeIndia292.5-LAL gel clot test31.25 µg/m3-[23]
Cotton mill (carding and yarning)India22.5-LAL gel clot test0.0625 µg/m3-[23]
Cleaning of Bengal gram in godownIndia2115-LAL gel clot test62.5 µg/m3-[23]
Cleaning of sorghum in godownIndia270-LAL gel clot test6.25 µg/m3-[23]
Cleaning of wheat in godownIndia250-LAL gel clot test62.5 µg/m3-[23]
Cleaning of red gram in godownIndia277.5-LAL gel clot test62.5 µg/m3-[23]
Grinding of grain for flourIndia2150-LAL gel clot test1.25 µg/m3-[23]
Cleaning of rice in godownIndia2257.5-LAL gel clot test124.9 µg/m3-[23]
Horticulture sector (21 companies)The Netherlands291GM: 0.6InhalableQKC LAL testGM: 170 EU/m31.6–191,430 EU/m3[24]
Gin houseIndia 2.11-LAL technique2.77 µg/m32.16–3.38 µg/m3[69]
Grain handling companiesNorway166GM: 1InhalableQKC LAL testGM: 62811–64,250[90]
Soil tillageUSA4-InhalableKinetic LAL34.3 EU/m3-[99]
Bean threshingUSA4-InhalableKinetic LAL220.3 EU/m3-[99]
Hemp processing plantUK--InhalableKinetic QCL testAM: 19,569.4; GM: 14,345 EU/m32177–36,962 EU/m3[106]
Textile and garment factoriesEthiopia95AM: 1.3; GM: 0.75InhalableQKC LAL testAM: 2647; GM: 831 EU/m312–30,801 EU/m3[107]
Wheat harvestingColorado, USA-GM: 0.83, AM: 1.32Total dustQuantitative chromogenic modification of LALGM: 54.24; Mean: 104.6 EU/m34.4–744.4 EU/m3[108]
Sawmill industriesNorway481GM: 0.09ThoracicKinetic LAL assayGM: 3 EU/m3-[109]
SawmillsCroatia--RespirableQuantitative chromogenic end-point LAL336.5 EU/m3-[110]
AM: arithmetic means; GM: geometric mean.

3.1. Occurrence of Endotoxin in Animal Housing

Any structure that houses livestock is certain to produce dust. Dust can be generated from feed, excreta, feathers, fur etc. The occurrence of endotoxin in animal housing around the world is presented in Table 2. The animals and workers are exposed to different levels of dust in animal housing. The floor-housed poultry rearing system in Canada has the highest level of total dust (9.56 mg/m3) [48]. The cage-housed poultry system has lower dust concentrations due to the fact that the poultry is kept in the layer system and the poultry cannot perform dust bathing on the floor, which reduces the dust. The endotoxin concentration was found to be lower in the floor-housed poultry rearing system than in the cage system. In a floor-housed poultry rearing system, the excreta are collected in the floor and the moisture is absorbed by the bedding material, which is not the case with the cage-house poultry rearing system. The inhalable dust concentration in poultry farms of Denmark has a dust concentration of 5.7 mg/m3, which is above the permissible exposure limit [91]. In the case of the swine/pig farms, the dust generated was found to be in the range of 0.128 [92] to 5.0 mg/m3 [21] and the geometric mean of endotoxin concentration varies from 16.261 [93] to 1500 EU/m3 [94] The reason for higher endotoxin levels is due to concentrated animal feeds.
In dairy farms, the dust and endotoxin concentrations were measured at the milking section and feeding sections and in free stall dairy farms. The geometric mean of the dust concentration varies from 0.2 [96] to 1.7 mg/m3 [97], and the endotoxin concentration varies from 128 [98] to 448 EU/m3 [91]. The lowest concentration of dust was observed in a mink farm (7 mg/m3) [95], and the highest concentration of dust was reported in horse stables of the Netherlands (95 mg/m3) [102], and the endotoxin concentration was 214 [95] to 555 EU/m3 [102]. The endotoxin and dust concentrations were higher in pig farms than in cattle and poultry farms due to the higher density of animals and use of concentrated feeds in pig farms. Environmental factors, such as temperature, relative humidity and wind velocity, affect the levels of airborne endotoxins at the farms [82,90,103]. Endotoxin exposure is higher for persons living in rural regions with intense livestock production [10].

3.2. Occurrence of Endotoxin in Food Processing Industries

In food processing industries, water is used while processing the food. Endotoxin varies with the pre-processing methods used in food processing plants. Dry pre-processed methods (sun dried cherries of coffee) result in higher concentrations of endotoxin than wet pre-processed food processing methods by using water to depulp coffee cherries [104]. The occurrence of endotoxin in food processing industries around the world is presented in Table 3. The presence of water helps to reduce dust and endotoxin exposure to the workers, as the dust gets absorbed in the water [24]. Yang, 2013, reported that the total suspended dust increases on colder days [66].

3.3. Occurrence of Endotoxin in Other Industries

Byssinosis is commonly developed in workers who are exposed to cotton dust [5]. In rice mills, dust can be generated due to abrasion of the paddy. The occurrence of endotoxin in other agricultural industries around the world is presented in Table 4. During the post-harvest handling of cereal/fruit crops, dust is generated due to the breaking of plant materials. The workers are exposed to this contaminant and are exposed to dust, which can reduce the forced vital capacity of the workers [28,33,35,36,37,38,39]. Many researchers have collected data on inhalable, thoracic and total dust, but very few researchers have sampled the respirable fraction of dust samples [88,92,101,110]. The respirable dust fraction can penetrate beyond the terminal bronchioles of the lungs [28,41]. Respirable dust laden with endotoxin can cause serious health issues for the workers.

4. Dose of Endotoxin Exposure and Health Effects

The health effect of endotoxin is related to the dose of endotoxin exposure in the workers [111]. Endotoxin present in a respirable fraction of dust may cause cellular reactions in the alveoli of the workers [112]. Exposure to bacterial endotoxin for a long time increases the risk to respiratory health, and the most common problem associated is endotoxic shock [113,114,115]. Due to endotoxin exposure in the workers, there is a significant across-shift decrease in the lung function when the endotoxin exposure limit exceeds 53 EU/m3 [116]. There is an across-shift decrease in maximal mid-expiratory flow of the worker in animal feed industries due to exposure to endotoxin when the limit exceeds 15 ng/m3 [117].
Most grass seed extracts can produce the proinflammatory cytokines IL1, IL6, IL8 and TNF, which is comparable to that with LPS, and this is a probable cause of organic dust toxic syndrome in workers [118]. In vitro, LPS induces cytokines, which has heritability effects on the workers, and it is associated with cytokine SNPs, which cause clinical disorders [119]. TLR-4299 (A/G) and TLR-4399 (C/T) increase the risk of septic shock as well. IFN-6-174 (G/C) is linked to tuberculosis, and IL-6-174 (G/C) is associated with the development of the metabolic syndrome and ischemic heart disease [120].
The maximum exposure limit to LPS (50 µg/m3) can induce acute symptoms and fever, and the change in lung function with dyspnea and the inhalation of LPS can modify eosinophilic inflammation [120]. The increase in endotoxin concentrations in the house can be linked to a higher serum level of total allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) [54]. Mononuclear phagocytes (monocytes and macrophages) are the primary cells that respond initially to inhaled endotoxin via the quick release of tumor necrosis factor (TNF). Inflammatory mediators produced from monocytes/macrophages can cause pyrexia, neutrophil recruitment, activation of airway epithelial cells and direct bronchial hyper-reactivity [44]. Endotoxin exposure can cause respiratory disorders, and a decrease in lung function occurs when the endotoxin exposure level ranges from 0.2 to 470 ng/m3 [121]. In healthy youth, blood pressure of workers is increased with a short duration (130 min) of exposure to endotoxin β-1,3-D-Glucan [122]. Latza et al. [123] and Oldenburg et al. [124] reported that there is a significant dose-dependent effect on bronchial symptoms and that bronchial symptoms increase as the exposure limit exceeds 450 EU/m3.
With an increase in concentration, endotoxin increases respiratory symptoms, such as wheezing, wheezing with shortness of breath and cough [118]. Exposure to higher concentrations of endotoxin exacerbates the risk of lung function, causes mortality in male workers in textile industries [125], lowers pulmonary functions in patients [126,127,128,129], causes dust toxic syndrome and chronic bronchitis [91,130], and results in fever, chest tightness and bronchoconstriction in cotton workers [130]. Long-term and high-level exposure to endotoxin reduces the risk of lung cancer [129] and decreases pulmonary function after 16–20 h of exposure when endotoxin exposure exceeds 4 ng/m3 [131]. In vitro, endotoxin increases the oxidative stress induced by amorphous silica-engineered nanoparticles in lung epithelial cells [132]. Eighty-nine per cent of dairy workers were found to be exposed to endotoxin above the recommended exposure limit in dairies located in Colorado and Wyoming, USA, which resulted in a significant risk to workers’ health [100]. A proper dose for endotoxin exposure that can be accepted worldwide has not been formulated.

5. Detection Techniques

The assessment of endotoxin differs with different sampling methods, extraction methods, sample storage temperatures and procedures employed [82,133]. Dust of different fractions is collected on different samplers. The most common filter used for dust collection is a 37 mm glass fiber filter. The gravimetric dust sampling method is a common method to quantify the dust concentration in agricultural operations and settings. The dust fractions that are used for endotoxin analysis are inhalable [19,92,95,99,100,107], thoracic [96] and respirable dust [92,110]. Some authors also quantify endotoxins in total dust [48] and PM10 [21,93]. There is no recommended temperature for storing the dust samples before endotoxin analysis. The common storage temperatures are −80 °C [22], −20 °C [17,95] and 4 °C [96,105]. Other temperatures for storing the dust samples are dry ice temperatures [109] and −70 °C [100]. During filter extraction, the most common pyrogen-free water (PFW) used for media extraction is 0.05% Tween 20 (also known as Polysorbate 20). Other PFWs that are used are 0.01% Tween 80, sterile nonpyrogenic water (Travenol Laboratories, INC., Morton Grove, III, Deerfield, IL, USA) and TAP Buffer (0.05 M potassium phosphate, 0.01% triethylamine, pH 7.5). The quantity of PFW used is either 5 or 10 mL.
Centrifugation of the solution is carried out with the help of a centrifuge, and the supernatant obtained is used for the analysis of endotoxin concentration. There is no standard frequency and time for centrifugation. The most common frequency and time for supernatant extraction is 1000× g for 10 min. Other frequencies and times that are employed for centrifugation are 600× g for 5 min, 600× g for 20 min, 350 rpm for 60 min, 2000× g for 10 min, 1420 × g for 30 min, 5000 rpm for 10 min, 2000 rpm for 10 min and 900× g for 5 min.
The concentration of endotoxin is estimated from the endotoxin of standard bacteria. The standard bacteria that are used to estimate the endotoxin concentration in agricultural settings and operations are E. coli (Endosafe; CSE lot no. ET 84092, Wilmington, MA, USA); E. coli 0111: B4, E. coli O55:B5, E. coli 6 standards, E. coli 0113:H10 (Difco, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and U.S. endotoxin standard EC-5. E. coli O55:B5 is the most commonly used standard. Internationally, endotoxin is measured in endotoxin units (EU) per unit volume of air. The unit for endotoxin varies largely from laboratory to laboratory and based on the standard bacteria and analytical procedure used. The conversion value of endotoxin from ng/m3 to EU/m3 for E. coli O55:B5 and E. coli 0113:H10 (Difco) is 10 EU/m3 equals 1 ng/ m3, with 8 EU/m3 equals 1 ng/m3 for the E. coli 6 standard.
The different analytical methods used for the analysis of endotoxin are the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) assay, gel clot assay, chromogenic-end point LAL assay, spectrophotometric modification of the LAL gel test, quantitative chromogenic modification of LAL gel test, kinetic-turbidimetric Limulus assay, quantitative kinetic chromogenic LAL test and recombinant factor C assay. The most common analytic method is the LAL assay. There are different types of LAL assays, such as the gel clot assay, turbidity assay and chromogenic assay [134]. The most frequently followed analytical method is the kinetic chromogenic assay, which is the quantitative method for detecting the presence of endotoxin. In the kinetic chromogenic assay, the supernatant of the samples is mixed with LAL reagent and placed in a microplate reader and monitored at a wavelength of 405 nm over time to detect the color change. The kinetic chromogenic LAL assay is the most widely used test to quantify endotoxin present in environmental samples [43]. Other LAL methods used to detect the endotoxin of GNB include a spectrophotometric modification of the LAL gel test, quantitative chromogenic modification of the LAL gel test, endpoint chromogenic LAL, and LAL gel clot test. Another alternative method for the quantification of bacterial endotoxin is the recombinant Factor C (rFC) assay. The rFC assay is a recently developed method for analyzing bacterial endotoxin, and it uses the rFC reagent produced from the cDNA of the Mangrove horseshoe crab (Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda) [9,135]. Different detection techniques followed are presented in Table 5.

6. Management and Control Strategies

Reducing endotoxin exposure to workers in an agricultural setting is very important to reduce health hazards. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommends training the workers on recognizing the health effect of endotoxin exposure from bioaerosols [137]. Four management and control strategies can be implemented to reduce endotoxin exposure. The first strategy is the reduction of endotoxin at the source. Intercepting the travel of endotoxin to the workers could be the second strategy. Administrative control methods could be used if the first two strategies fail. The last strategy is the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).
The endotoxin concentration depends on dust concentration and the amount of dust exposure [107,138]. Dust generation needs to be reduced to minimize endotoxin exposure in an agricultural setting. Operations involving size reduction and grinding in livestock houses should be avoided or isolated, as these operations generate dust (animal fat or vegetable oil) [139]. Dust generation is reduced by spraying finer droplets of water or other liquid over the source of dust generation. Poultry breeding houses [140,141,142,143,144] and pig buildings [145] have used the liquid spraying technique to suspend the dust generated. This control method sprays the liquid in small-scale spice grinding mills [146]. Artificial intelligence, such as animal activity tracking sensors and image sensing sensors, can be employed to track the activity of animals to predict the dust concentration and provide suitable mechanisms, including the spraying of water or liquid to reduce dust and endotoxin [147]. In livestock buildings, dust is generated from the feed, and it is reduced with the addition of animal fat or vegetable oil in the feed [139]. The mixing of fat or oil into the feed suspends the dust available or generated with the feed. Mechanical interventions are used to reduce dust emissions where water spraying is not feasible. Interventions are used to facilitate dust concentration in rice mills [7], poultry housing [139], pig buildings [147,148,149] and bakeries [149,150]. Dust generation in poultry housing is reduced by reducing the relative humidity [140].
The endotoxin concentration is high in the production process due to rotten fresh vegetables, plant material and other waste material. Exposure can be reduced by removing rotten parts, soil and plant parts at the early stages of processing and cleaning seeds [151]. The use of water in the processing units results in the emission of more endotoxin than processing without the use of water [148] as the growth of microorganisms increases with an increase in moisture. Dust and endotoxin exposure is reduced by using a barrier or an enclosure for isolation so that the dust generated at the source is trapped and accumulated. This strategy is used in food processing plants [152,153,154]. Airborne endotoxin concentrations may be affected by the ventilation and hygiene of the building [82]. If isolation is not effective, ventilation is performed in the buildings [155,156,157] to reduce dust propagation to the workers. Animal housing and processing plants have ventilation to reduce dust exposure. Dust and endotoxin can be decreased effectively using ventilation and an exhaust system. However, ventilation at a higher velocity may spread the settled dust and keep it suspended in the workplace [155]. Job rotation, which reduces exposure time, can be practiced to further reduce dust and endotoxin exposure. Spaan et al. [158] reported that workers who are performing the same task at the same location have exposure to endotoxin similar to that for workers who are performing different tasks at the same location [158].
PPE is used to reduce dust and endotoxin exposure, as other strategies are ineffective. OSHA recommended using NIOSH-certified N95 masks/respirators for respiratory protection for workers exposed to dust and endotoxin [137]. There is a significant reduction in respirable symptoms experienced by workers after using N95 masks [159]. Woodworkers were found to have a positive view of the importance of using PPE, although workers did not use it frequently [160]. Regular workers are more likely to use PPE than temporary workers because temporary workers are not generally provided PPE [161]. However, the use of PPE has many limitations. PPE in a hot climate or workplace can induce dehydration and heat exhaustion. Dehydration and heat exhaustion affect the overall productivity and safety of the workers, and it can lead to acute or chronic diseases and in extreme circumstances, death. Young male agricultural workers use more respirators or masks to protect them from dust than older female workers [162]. Since male workers participate in hazardous and heavy work periodically, they are more likely to be exposed to the hazardous environment than female workers [163]. PPE should be made accessible to the workers. Training could be provided to the workers regarding the use of PPE, and awareness should be encouraged [164]. Dust settles on workers’ clothes in the workplace; therefore, the same clothes should not be used before laundry to reduce endotoxin exposure.

7. Conclusions

Agricultural operations generate a sizeable amount of dust during various operations. This dust is inhaled through the nose and mouth of the workers who are exposed to dust. Endotoxin is present in the dust to which the workers are exposed. The inhalation of dust with endotoxin causes many respiratory disorders in the workers. In the agricultural sector, Pantoea agglomerans of GNB are predominantly present. Dust samples are collected using different dust samplers at different flow rates using different filters. The dust samples are analyzed gravimetrically to determine the concentration of dust. The filters are stored at a temperature of −20 °C in most research articles. E. coli 055: B5 is the predominately used standard to quantify endotoxin. Quantitative kinetic LAL is the most common detection method for quantifying endotoxin. It was observed that the concentration of endotoxin is above the threshold recommended limit in major agricultural operations and industries. The presence of causative GNB and other microorganisms is relatively high in the dust. Dust containing bacterial endotoxin has a significant impact on health. This paper does not analyze the effect of temperature and relative humidity on the working environment of the workers. The use of personal protective equipment was found to be an effective strategy to reduce exposure to endotoxin and dust in agricultural farms and settings.

Author Contributions

K.N.D. and P.K.: Conceptualization; B.S.K.C. and K.N.D.: Writing—original draft preparation, literature survey, table preparation. D.K.M. and P.K: Writing—Reviewing and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


All authors are thankful to CIAE, Bhopal and ICAR, New Delhi, for financial assistance.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


The authors are very grateful to the authority of the Department of Agricultural Engineering and Department of forestry, NERIST and the Institution for their support in this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Linaker, C.; Smedley, J. Respiratory Illness in Agricultural Workers. Occup. Med. 2002, 52, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  2. Molocznik, A. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Agricultural Dust in Working Environment. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2002, 9, 71–78. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dewangan, K.N.; Patil, M.R. Evaluation of Dust Exposure among the Workers in Agricultural Industries in North-East India. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2015, 59, 1091–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Occupational Exposure Limits; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GE, USA, 2018.
  5. Pranav, P.K.; Biswas, M. Mechanical Intervention for Reducing Dust Concentration in Traditional Rice Mills. Ind. Health 2016, 54, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  6. Mołocznik, A.; Zagórski, J. Exposure to Dust among Agricultural Workers. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 1998, 5, 127–130. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mehta, A.J.; Wang, X.R.; Eisen, E.A.; Dai, H.L.; Astrakianakis, G.; Seixas, N.; Camp, J.; Checkoway, H.; Christiani, D.C. Work Area Measurements as Predictors of Personal Exposure to Endotoxin and Cotton Dust in the Cotton Textile Industry. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2008, 52, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  8. Shivpuje, S.H.; Mehta, A.K.; Patil, D.V.; Dharaiya, P.A. Evaluation of Organic and Inorganic Dust Concentration in Different Mechanized Agricultural Operations for Wheat Crop. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2020, 9, 2806–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Thorne, P.S.; Perry, S.S.; Saito, R.; O’Shaughnessy, P.T.; Mehafly, J.; Metwali, N.; Keefe, T.; Donham, K.J.; Reynolds, S.J. Evaluation of the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate and Recombinant Factor C Assays for Assessment of Airborne Endotoxins. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 4988–4995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  10. Liebers, V.; Raulf-Heimsoth, M.; Brüning, T. Health Effects Due to Endotoxin Inhalation (Review). Arch. Toxicol. 2008, 82, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Piek, S.; Kahler, C.M. A Comparison of the Endotoxin Biosynthesis and Protein Oxidation Pathways in the Biogenesis of the Outer Membrane of Escherichia Coli and Neisseria Meningitidis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2012, 2, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  12. Holst, O.; Ulmer, A.J.; Brade, H.; Flad, H.D.; Rietschel, E.T. Biochemistry and Cell Biology of Bacterial Endotoxins. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 1996, 16, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Valvano, M.A. Pathogenicity and Molecular Genetics of O-Specific Side-Chain Lipopolysaccharides of Escherichia Coli. Can. J. Microbiol. 1992, 38, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, X.; Quinn, P.J. Lipopolysaccharide: Biosynthetic Pathway and Structure Modification. Prog. Lipid Res. 2010, 49, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bertani, B.; Ruiz, N. Function and Biogenesis of Lipopolysaccharides. EcoSal Plus 2018, 8, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Alexander, C.; Rietschel, E.T. Bacterial Lipopolysaccharides and Innate Immunity. J. Endotoxin Res. 2001, 7, 167–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sauvé, J.F.; Locke, S.J.; Josse, P.R.; Stapleton, E.M.; Metwali, N.; Altmaier, R.W.; Andreotti, G.; Thorne, P.S.; Hofmann, J.N.; Beane Freeman, L.E.; et al. Characterization of Inhalable Endotoxin, Glucan, and Dust Exposures in Iowa Farmers. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2020, 228, 113525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. DECOS. Endotoxins: Health Based Recommended Exposure Limit; A Report of the Health Council of The Netherlands; Dutch Expert Committee on Occupational Safety: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  19. Paudyal, P.; Semple, S.; Niven, R.; Tavernier, G.; Ayres, J.G. Exposure to Dust and Endotoxin in Textile Processing Workers. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2011, 55, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  20. Shakri, S.F.M.; Anua, S.M.; Safuan, S.; Mohamad Asri, A.A. Endotoxin Exposure and Lung Function among Rice Millers in Malaysia. J. Health Transl. Med. 2020, 23, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
  21. Radon, K.; Danuser, B.; Iversen, M.; Monso, E.; Weber, C.; Hartung, J.; Donham, K.; Palmgren, U.; Nowak, D. Air Contaminants in Different European Farming Environments. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2002, 9, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  22. Thilsing, T.; Madsen, A.M.; Basinas, I.; Schlünssen, V.; Tendal, K.; Bælum, J. Dust, Endotoxin, Fungi, and Bacteria Exposure as Determined by Work Task, Season, and Type of Plant in a Flower Greenhouse. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2015, 59, 142–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  23. Krysińska-Traczyk, E.; Pande, B.N.; Skórska, C.; Sitkowska, J.; Prazmo, Z.; Cholewa, G.; Dutkiewicz, J. Exposure of Indian Agricultural Workers to Airborne Microorganisms, Dust and Endotoxin during Handling of Various Plant Products. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2005, 12, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Spaan, S.; Wouters, I.M.; Oosting, I.; Doekes, G.; Heederik, D. Exposure to Inhalable Dust and Endotoxins in Agricultural Industries. J. Environ. Monit. 2006, 8, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Smit, L.A.M.; Wouters, I.M.; Hobo, M.M.; Eduard, W.; Doekes, G.; Heederik, D. Agricultural Seed Dust as a Potential Cause of Organic Dust Toxic Syndrome. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006, 63, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  26. Zejda, J.E.; Dosman, J.A. Respiratory Disorders in Agriculture. Tuber. Lung Dis. 1993, 74, 74–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Eshwaramma, P.; Sudeena, S.; Subhakar, K.; Chaladevi, D. A Study of Respiratory Disorders in Rice Mill Workers of the Mahaboobnagar and to Compare with the Control Group from Same District. Asian Pac. J. Health Sci. 2016, 3, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Srinivasulu, M.; Begum, S.A. Assessment of Pulmonary Function Tests Among Rice Mill Workers. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2020, 8, 733–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  29. Mulamalla, R.R.; Shaik, A.R.; Challa, S.R. A Study of Respiratory Symptoms and Disorders among Rice Mill Workers. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2020, 9, 2874–2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lagiso, Z.A.; Mekonnen, W.T.; Abaya, S.W.; Takele, A.K.; Workneh, H.M. Chronic Respiratory Symptoms, Lung Function and Associated Factors among Flour Mill Factory Workers in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia: “Comparative Cross-Sectional Study”. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Roy, S.; Dasgupta, A.; Bandyopadhyay, L.; Paul, B.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; Kumar, M. Morbidities of Rice Mill Workers and Associated Factors in a Block of West Bengal: A Matter of Concern. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2020, 9, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ansari, M.M.H.; Karim, M.R.; Mashud, I. Symptoms of Respiratory Health Problems in Rice Mill Workers of Bangladesh. KYAMC J. 2017, 7, 758–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  33. Musa, A.I.; Orelaja, O.A. Ergonomic Consideration of the Effect of Flour Dust on Peak Expiratory Flow Rate of Bakers in Abeokuta, Ogun State. Trans. VŠB Tech. Univ. Ostrava Saf. Eng. Ser. 2017, 12, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  34. Schwartz, D.A.; Thorne, P.S.; Yagla, S.J.; Burmeister, L.F.; Olenchock, S.A.; Watt, J.L.; Quinn, T.J. The Role of Endotoxin in Grain Dust-Induced Lung Disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1995, 152, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mohammadien, H.A.; Hussein, M.T.; El-Sokkary, R.T. Effects of Exposure to Flour Dust on Respiratory Symptoms and Pulmonary Function of Mill Workers. Egypt. J. Chest Dis. Tuberc. 2013, 62, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  36. Wickramage, S.P.; Rajaratne, A.A.J.; Udupihille, M. Are Rice Millers an At-Risk Group for Lung Disease?—An Occupational Health Concern in Rural Sri Lanka. Indian J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2017, 61, 340–347. [Google Scholar]
  37. Habybabady, R.H.; Nasibi Sis, H.; Paridokht, F.; Ramrudinasab, F.; Behmadi, A.; Khosravi, B.; Mohammadi, M. Effects of Dust Exposure on the Respiratory Health Symptoms and Pulmonary Functions of Street Sweepers. Malays. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 25, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sundaram, P.; Shankar, M.S.V.; Aswathappa, J.; Kutty, K. Evaluation of Pulmonary Function in Rice Mill Workers. Indian J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2019, 63, 192–197. [Google Scholar]
  39. Suryadi, I.; Matin, H.H.A.; Suhardono, S.; Rinawati, S.; Rachmawati, S.; Kusumaningrum, L. Correlation with Dust Exposure Rice Milling Worker’s Lung Function Capacity in Sub-District Kerjo. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Jakarta, Indonesia, 9 January 2021; Volume 623, p. 012033. [Google Scholar]
  40. Vijayashankar, U.; Rajeshwari, L. Effect of Rice Mill Dust on Peak Expiratory Flow Rate among Rice Mill Workers of Mysore District. Natl. J. Physiol. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2018, 8, 1240–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ateş, I. Occupational Mineral Dust Induced Toxicity and Cytokines. Turk. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 8, 81–90. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ghosh, T.; Gangopadhyay, S.; Das, B. Prevalence of Respiratory Symptoms and Disorders among Rice Mill Workers in India. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2014, 19, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Douwes, J.; Thorne, P.; Pearce, N.; Heederik, D. Bioaerosol Health Effects and Exposure Assessment: Progress and Prospects. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2003, 47, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. Viegas, S.; Caetano, L.A.; Korkalainen, M.; Faria, T.; Pacífico, C.; Carolino, E.; Gomes, A.Q.; Viegas, C. Cytotoxic and Inflammatory Potential of Air Samples from Occupational Settings with Exposure to Organic Dust. Toxics 2017, 5, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  45. Morakinyo, O.M.; Mokgobu, M.I.; Mukhola, M.S.; Godobedzha, T. Biological Composition of Respirable Particulate Matter in an Industrial Vicinity in South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  46. Xu, L.Y.; Wang, K.; Li, W.J.; Guo, Y.L.; Kong, J.L. Effect of Endotoxin Exposure on Lung Cancer Risk in Cotton Textile Mills and Agriculture: A Meta-Analysis. Transl. Cancer Res. 2016, 5, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Guan, T.; Yao, M.; Wang, J.; Fang, Y.; Hu, S.; Wang, Y.; Dutta, A.; Yang, J.; Wu, Y.; Hu, M.; et al. Airborne Endotoxin in Fine Particulate Matter in Beijing. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 97, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kirychuk, S.P.; Dosman, J.A.; Reynolds, S.J.; Willson, P.; Senthilselvan, A.; Feddes, J.J.R.; Classen, H.L.; Guenter, W. Total Dust and Endotoxin in Poultry Operations: Comparison between Cage and Floor Housing and Respiratory Effects in Workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006, 48, 741–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kirychuk, S.P.; Reynolds, S.J.; Koehncke, N.K.; Lawson, J.; Willson, P.; Senthilselvan, A.; Marciniuk, D.; Classen, H.L.; Crowe, T.; Just, N.; et al. Endotoxin and Dust at Respirable and Nonrespirable Particle Sizes Are Not Consistent between Cage- and Floor-Housed Poultry Operations. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2010, 54, 824–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duquenne, P.; Marchand, G.; Duchaine, C. Measurement of Endotoxins in Bioaerosols at Workplace: A Critical Revie. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2013, 57, 137–172. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hwang, S.H.; Park, D.U. Ambient Endotoxin and Chemical Pollutant (PM10, PM2.5, and O3) Levels in South Korea. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2019, 19, 786–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Farokhi, A.; Heederik, D.; Smit, L.A.M. Respiratory Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Airborne Endotoxin—A Systematic Review. Environ. Health 2018, 17, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  53. Zielen, S.; Trischler, J.; Schubert, R. Lipopolysaccharide Challenge: Immunological Effects and Safety in Humans. Expert Rev. Clin. Immunol. 2015, 11, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Min, K.B.; Min, J.Y. Exposure to Household Endotoxin and Total and Allergen-Specific IgE in the US Population. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 199, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Shang, D.; Zhang, Q.; Dong, W.; Liang, H.; Bi, X. The Effects of LPS on the Activity of Trp-Containing Antimicrobial Peptides against Gram-Negative Bacteria and Endotoxin Neutralization. Acta Biomater. 2016, 33, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lenters, V.; Basinas, I.; Beane-Freeman, L.; Boffetta, P.; Checkoway, H.; Coggon, D.; Portengen, L.; Sim, M.; Wouters, I.M.; Heederik, D.; et al. Endotoxin Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Published Literature on Agriculture and Cotton Textile Workers. Cancer Causes Control. 2010, 21, 523–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vogelzang, P.F.J.; Van Der Gulden, J.W.J.; Folgering, H.; Kolk, J.J.; Heederik, D.; Preller, L.; Tielen, M.J.M.; Van Schayck, C.P. Endotoxin Exposure as a Major Determinant of Lung Function Decline in Pig Farmers. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1998, 157, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  58. Le Blond, J.S.; Horwell, C.J.; Williamson, B.J.; Oppenheimer, C. Generation of Crystalline Silica from Sugarcane Burning. J. Environ. Monit. 2010, 12, 1459–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mohamed, S.H.; El-Ansary, A.L.; El-Aziz, E.M.A. Determination of Crystalline Silica in Respirable Dust upon Occupational Exposure for Egyptian Workers. Ind. Health 2018, 56, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  60. Allen, J.; Bartlett, K.; Graham, M.; Jackson, P. Ambient Concentrations of Airborne Endotoxin in Two Cities in the Interior of British Columbia, Canada. J. Environ. Monit. 2011, 13, 631–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yong, M.; Anderle, L.; Lenaerts, H.; Derwall, R.; Morfeld, P. Effect of Respirable Coal Mine Dust and Quartz on Lung Function Parameters of German Coalminers: A Longitudinal Study 1974–2004. Ann. Lung Cancer 2019, 3, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Younis, F.; Salem, E.; Salem, E. Respiratory Health Disorders Associated with Occupational Exposure to Bioaerosols among Workers in Poultry Breeding Farms. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 19869–19876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Létourneau, V.; Mériaux, A.; Goyer, N.; Chakir, J.; Cormier, Y.; Duchaine, C. Biological Activities of Respirable Dust from Eastern Canadian Peat Moss Factories. Toxicol. Vitr. 2010, 24, 1273–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dutkiewicz, J. Bacteria, Fungi, and Endotoxin as Potential Agents of Occupational Hazard in a Potato Processing Plant. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1994, 25, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Pande, B.N.; Krysinska-Traczyk, E.; Prazmo, Z.; Skórska, C.; Sitkowska, J.; Dutkiewicz, J. Occupational Biohazards in Agricultural Dusts from India. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. AAEM 2000, 726, 133–139. [Google Scholar]
  66. Yang, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Lee, J.; Su, J.; Gates, R.S. Monitoring Total Endotoxin and (1→3)-β-d-Glucan at the Air Exhaust of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2013, 63, 1190–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  67. DeLucca, A.J.; Godshall, M.A.; Palmgren, M.S. Gram-Negative Bacterial Endotoxins in Grain Elevator Dusts. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1984, 45, 336–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lawniczek-Walczyk, A.; Gorny, R.L.; Golofit-Szymczak, M.; Niesler, A.; Wlazlo, A. Occupational Exposure to Airborne Microorganisms, Endotoxins and β-Glucans in Poultry Houses at Different Stages of the Production Cycle. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2013, 20, 259–268. [Google Scholar]
  69. Doctor, P.B.; Bhagia, L.J.; Derasari, A.Y.; Vyas, J.B.; Amin, R.J.; Ghosh, S.K. A Preliminary Study on Gram-Negative Bacteria (GNB) and Their Endotoxins in a Gin House in India. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2006, 3, 707–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dutkiewicz, J.; MacKiewicz, B.; Lemieszek, M.K.; Golec, M.; Skórska, C.; Góra-Florek, A.; Milanowski, J. Pantoea Agglomerans: A Mysterious Bacterium of Evil and Good. Part II-Deleterious Effects: Dust-Borne Endotoxins and Allergens-Focus on Grain Dust, Other Agricultural Dusts and Wood Dust. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2016, 23, 6–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Büyükcam, A.; Tuncer, Ö.; Gür, D.; Sancak, B.; Ceyhan, M.; Cengiz, A.B.; Kara, A. Clinical and Microbiological Characteristics of Pantoea Agglomerans Infection in Children. J. Infect. Public Health 2018, 11, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bulyhina, T.V.; Zdorovenko, E.L.; Varbanets, L.D.; Shashkov, A.S.; Kadykova, A.A.; Knirel, Y.A.; Lushchak, O.V. Structure of O-Polysaccharide and Lipid a of Pantoea Agglomerans 8488. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dutta, B.; Barman, A.K.; Srinivasan, R.; Avci, U.; Ullman, D.E.; Langston, D.B.; Gitaitis, R.D. Transmission of Pantoea Ananatis and P. Agglomerans, Causal Agents of Center Rot of Onion (Allium Cepa), by Onion Thrips (Thrips Tabaci) through Feces. Phytopathology 2014, 104, 812–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ferguson, R.; Feeney, C.; Chirurgi, V.A. Enterobacter Agglomerans—Associated Cotton Fever. Arch. Intern. Med. 1993, 153, 2381–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Medrano, E.G.; Bell, A.A. Role of Pantoea Agglomerans in Opportunistic Bacterial Seed and Boll Rot of Cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum) Grown in the Field. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 102, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ehetisham-ul-Haq, M.; Khan, M.A.; Javed, M.T.; Atiq, M.; Rashid, A. Pathogenic Aspects of Pantoea Agglomerans in Relation to Cotton Boll Age and Dysdercus Cingulatus (Fabricius) Transmitting Seed and Boll Rot in Cotton Germplasm. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2014, 47, 1815–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kullman, G.J.; Thorne, P.S.; Waldron, P.F.; Marx, J.J.; Ault, B.; Lewis, D.M.; Siegel, P.D.; Olenchock, S.A.; Merchant, J.A. Organic Dust Exposures from Work in Dairy Barns. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1998, 59, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Góra, A.; Mackiewicz, B.; Krawczyk, P.; Golec, M.; Skórska, C.; Sitkowska, J.; Cholewa, G.; Larsson, L.; Jarosz, M.; Wójcik-Fatla, A.; et al. Occupational Exposure to Organic Dust, Microorganisms, Endotoxin and Peptidoglycan among Plants Processing Workers in Poland. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2009, 16, 143–150. [Google Scholar]
  79. Gόrny, R.L.; Dutkiewicz, J. Bacterial and Fungal Aerosols in Indoor Environment in Central and Eastern European Countries. Ann. Agric. Env. Med. 2002, 9, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mackiewicz, B.; Skórska, C.; Dutkiewicz, J. Relationship between Concentrations of Microbiological Agents in the Air of Agricultural Settings and Occurrence of Work-Related Symptoms in Exposed Persons. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2015, 22, 473–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  81. Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Noderer, K.S.; Schenker, M.B.; Vallyathan, V.; Olenchock, S. Personal Exposure to Dust, Endotoxin and Crystalline Silica in California Agriculture. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1999, 43, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Carty, C.L.; Gehring, U.; Cyrys, J.; Bischof, W.; Heinrich, J. Seasonal Variability of Endotoxin in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter. J. Environ. Monit. 2003, 5, 953–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rolph, C.A.; Gwyther, C.L.; Tyrrel, S.F.; Nasir, Z.A.; Drew, G.H.; Jackson, S.K.; Khera, S.; Hayes, E.T.; Williams, B.; Bennett, A.; et al. Sources of Airborne Endotoxins in Ambient Air and Exposure of Nearby Communities–A Review. Atmosphere 2018, 9, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  84. Vučemilo, M.; Matković, K.; Vinković, B.; Macan, J.; Varnai, V.M.; Prester, L.; Granić, K.; Orct, T. Effect of Microclimate on the Airborne Dust and Endotoxin Concentration in a Broiler House. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 53, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Salonen, H.; Duchaine, C.; Létourneau, V.; Mazaheri, M.; Laitinen, S.; Clifford, S.; Mikkola, R.; Lappalainen, S.; Reijula, K.; Morawska, L. Endotoxin Levels and Contribution Factors of Endotoxins in Resident, School, and Office Environments—A Review. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 142, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  86. Morgenstern, V.; Carty, C.L.; Gehring, U.; Cyrys, J.; Bischof, W.; Heinrich, J. Lack of Spatial Variation of Endotoxin in Ambient Particulate Matter across a German Metropolitan Area. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 6931–6941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Morgenstern, V.; Bischof, W.; Koch, A.; Heinrich, J. Measurements of Endotoxin on Ambient Loaded PM Filters after Long-Term Storage. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 370, 574–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Chang, C.W.; Chung, H.; Huang, C.F.; Su, H.J.J. Exposure Assessment to Airborne Endotoxin, Dust, Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide in Open Style Swine Houses. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2001, 45, 457–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Thedell, T.D.; Mull, J.C.; Olenchock, S.A. A Brief Report of Gram-negative Bacterial Endotoxin Levels in Airborne and Settled Dusts in Animal Confinement Buildings. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1980, 1, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Halstensen, A.S.; Heldal, K.K.; Wouters, I.M.; Skogstad, M.; Ellingsen, D.A.G.G.; Eduard, W. Exposure to Grain Dust and Microbial Components in the Norwegian Grain and Compound Feed Industry. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2013, 57, 1105–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  91. Basinas, I.; Schlünssen, V.; Heederik, D.; Sigsgaard, T.; Smit, L.A.M.; Samadi, S.; Omland, Ø.; Hjort, C.; Madsen, A.M.; Skov, S.; et al. Sensitisation to Common Allergens and Respiratory Symptoms in Endotoxin Exposed Workers: A Pooled Analysis. Occup. Environ. Med. 2012, 69, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Shin, S.J.; Song, E.S.; Kim, J.W.; Lee, J.H.; Gautam, R.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, Y.G.; Cho, A.R.; Yang, S.J.; Acharya, M.; et al. Major Environmental Characteristics of Swine Husbandry That Affect Exposure to Dust and Airborne Endotoxins. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A Curr. Issues 2019, 82, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Traversi, D.; Alessandria, L.; Schilirò, T.; Gilli, G. Size-Fractionated PM10 Monitoring in Relation to the Contribution of Endotoxins in Different Polluted Areas. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 3515–3521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Basinas, I.; Schlünssen, V.; Takai, H.; Heederik, D.; Omland, Ø.; Wouters, I.M.; Sigsgaard, T.; Kromhout, H. Exposure to Inhalable Dust and Endotoxin among Danish Pig Farmers Affected by Work Tasks and Stable Characteristics. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2013, 57, 1005–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Basinas, I.; Sigsgaard, T.; Heederik, D.; Takai, H.; Omland, Ø.; Andersen, N.T.; Wouters, I.M.; Bønløkke, J.H.; Kromhout, H.; Schlünssen, V. Exposure to Inhalable Dust and Endotoxin among Danish Livestock Farmers: Results from the SUS Cohort Study. J. Environ. Monit. 2012, 14, 604–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  96. Pfister, H.; Madec, L.; Le Cann, P.; Costet, N.; Chouvet, M.; Jouneau, S.; Vernhet, L. Factors Determining the Exposure of Dairy Farmers to Thoracic Organic Dust. Environ. Res. 2018, 165, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Basinas, I.; Cronin, G.; Hogan, V.; Sigsgaard, T.; Hayes, J.; Coggins, A.M. Exposure to Inhalable Dust, Endotoxin, and Total Volatile Organic Carbons on Dairy Farms Using Manual and Automated Feeding Systems. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2017, 61, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Garcia, J.; Bennett, D.H.; Tancredi, D.; Schenker, M.B.; Mitchell, D.; Reynolds, S.J.; Mitloehner, F.M. Occupational Exposure to Particulate Matter and Endotoxin for California Dairy Workers. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2013, 216, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Dungan, R.S.; Leytem, A.B.; Bjorneberg, D.L. Concentrations of Airborne Endotoxin and Microorganisms at a 10,000-Cow Open-Freestall Dairy. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89, 3300–3309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  100. Davidson, M.E.; Schaeffer, J.; Clark, M.L.; Magzamen, S.; Brooks, E.J.; Keefe, T.J.; Bradford, M.; Roman-Muniz, N.; Mehaffy, J.; Dooley, G.; et al. Personal Exposure of Dairy Workers to Dust, Endotoxin, Muramic Acid, Ergosterol, and Ammonia on Large-Scale Dairies in the High Plains Western United States. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2018, 15, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hwang, J.; Golla, V.; Metwali, N.; Thorne, P.S. Inhalable and Respirable Particulate and Endotoxin Exposures in Kentucky Equine Farms. J. Agromedicine 2020, 25, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Samadi, S.; Wouters, I.M.; Houben, R.; Jamshidifard, A.R.; Van Eerdenburg, F.; Heederik, D.J.J. Exposure to Inhalable Dust, Endotoxins, β(1→3)-Glucans, and Airborne Microorganisms in Horse Stables. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2009, 53, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. De Rooij, M.M.T.; Heederik, D.J.J.; Borlée, F.; Hoek, G.; Wouters, I.M. Spatial and Temporal Variation in Endotoxin and PM10 Concentrations in Ambient Air in a Livestock Dense Area. Environ. Res. 2017, 153, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sakwari, G.; Mamuya, S.H.D.; Bråtveit, M.; Larsson, L.; Pehrson, C.; Moen, B.E. Personal Exposure to Dust and Endotoxin in Robusta and Arabica Coffee Processing Factories in Tanzania. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2013, 57, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. O’Shaughnessy, P.; Peters, T.; Donham, K.; Taylor, C.; Altmaier, R.; Kelly, K. Assessment of Swine Worker Exposures to Dust and Endotoxin during Hog Load-out and Power Washing. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2012, 56, 843–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  106. Fishwick, D.; Allan, L.J.; Wright, A.; Curran, A.D. Assessment of Exposure to Organic Dust in a Hemp Processing Plant. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2001, 45, 577–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  107. Tefera, Y.; Schlünssen, V.; Kumie, A.; Deressa, W.; Moen, B.E.; Bråtveit, M. Personal Inhalable Dust and Endotoxin Exposure among Workers in an Integrated Textile Factory. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2020, 75, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  108. Viet, S.M.; Buchan, R.; Stallones, L. Acute Respiratory Effects and Endotoxin Exposure During Wheat Harvest in Northeastern Colorado. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2001, 16, 685–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Straumfors, A.; Olsen, R.; Daae, H.L.; Afanou, A.; McLean, D.; Corbin, M.; Mannetje, A.; Ulvestad, B.; Bakke, B.; Johnsen, H.L.; et al. Exposure to Wood Dust, Microbial Components, and Terpenes in the Norwegian Sawmill Industry. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2018, 62, 674–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Pipinić, I.S.; Varnai, V.M.; Lučić, R.B.; Čavlović, A.; Prester, L.; Orct, T.; MacAn, J. Endotoxin Exposure Assessment in Wood-Processing Industry: Airborne versus Settled Dust Levels. Arh. Hig. Rada Toksikol. 2010, 61, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  111. Jagielo, P.J.; Thorne, P.S.; Watt, J.L.; Frees, K.L.; Quinn, T.J.; Schwartz, D.A. Grain Dust and Endotoxin Inhalation Challenges Produce Similar Inflammatory Responses in Normal Subjects. Chest 1996, 110, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hagmar, L.; Schütz, A.; Hallberg, T.; Sjöholm, A. Health Effects of Exposure to Endotoxins and Organic Dust in Poultry Slaughter-House Workers. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1990, 62, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Nayak, S.K.; Swain, P.; Nanda, P.K.; Dash, S.; Shukla, S.; Meher, P.K.; Maiti, N.K. Effect of Endotoxin on the Immunity of Indian Major Carp, Labeo Rohita. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2008, 24, 394–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bottiroli, M.; Monti, G.; Pinciroli, R.; Vecchi, I.; Terzi, V.; Ortisi, G.; Casella, G.; Fumagalli, R. Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Early High Endotoxin Activity in Septic Shock: An Observational Study. J. Crit. Care 2017, 41, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Shamsollahi, H.R.; Ghoochani, M.; Jaafari, J.; Moosavi, A.; Sillanpää, M.; Alimohammadi, M. Environmental Exposure to Endotoxin and Its Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 174, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Zock, J.P.; Hollander, A.; Heederik, D.; Douwes, J. Acute Lung Function Changes and Low Endotoxin Exposures in the Potato Processing Industry. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1998, 33, 384–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Smid, T.; Heederik, D.; Houba, R.; Quanjer, P.H. Dust- and Endotoxin-related Acute Lung Function Changes and Work-related Symptoms in Workers in the Animal Feed Industry. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1994, 25, 877–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Smit, L.A.M.; Heederik, D.; Doekes, G.; Blom, C.; Van Zweden, I.; Wouters, I.M. Exposure-Response Analysis of Allergy and Respiratory Symptoms in Endotoxin-Exposed Adults. Eur. Respir. J. 2008, 31, 1241–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  119. Taudorf, S.; Krabbe, K.S.; Berg, R.M.G.; Møller, K.; Pedersen, B.K.; Bruunsgaard, H. Common Studied Polymorphisms Do Not Affect Plasma Cytokine Levels upon Endotoxin Exposure in Humans. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2008, 152, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Michel, O.; Nagy, A.M.; Schroeven, M.; Duchateau, J.; Neve, J.; Fondu, P.; Sergysels, R. Dose-Response Relationship to Inhaled Endotoxin in Normal Subjects. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1997, 156, 1157–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Smid, T.; Heederik, D.; Houba, R.; Quanjer, P.H. Dust- and Endotoxin-Related Respiratory Effects in the Animal Feed Industry. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1992, 146, 1474–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Zhong, J.; Urch, B.; Speck, M.; Coull, B.A.; Koutrakis, P.; Thorne, P.S.; Scott, J.; Liu, L.; Brook, R.D.; Behbod, B.; et al. Endotoxin and β-1,3-d-Glucan in Concentrated Ambient Particles Induce Rapid Increase in Blood Pressure in Controlled Human Exposures. Hypertension 2015, 66, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Latza, U.; Oldenburg, M.; Baur, X. Endotoxin Exposure and Respiratory Symptoms in the Cotton Textile Industry. Arch. Environ. Health Am. Int. J. 2004, 59, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Oldenburg, M.; Latza, U.; Baur, X. Exposure-Response Relationship between Endotoxin Exposure and Lung Function Impairment in Cotton Textile Workers. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2007, 80, 388–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Lai, P.S.; Hang, J.Q.; Zhang, F.Y.; Lin, X.; Zheng, B.Y.; Dai, H.L.; Su, L.; Cai, T.; Christiani, D.C. Gender Differences in the Effect of Occupational Endotoxin Exposure on Impaired Lung Function and Death: The Shanghai Textile Worker Study. Occup. Environ. Med. 2014, 71, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Carnes, M.U.; Hoppin, J.A.; Metwali, N.; Wyss, A.B.; Hankinson, J.L.; O’Connell, E.L.; Richards, M.; Long, S.; Freeman, L.E.B.; Sandler, D.P.; et al. House Dust Endotoxin Levels Are Associated with Adult Asthma in a U.S. Farming Population. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2017, 14, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  127. Castellan, R.M.; Olenchock, S.A.; Kinsley, K.B.; Hankinson, J.L. Inhaled Endotoxin and Decreased Spirometric Values. N. Engl. J. Med. 1987, 317, 605–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Mayan, O.; Da Costa, J.T.; Neves, P.; Capela, F.; Pinto, A.S. Respiratory Effects among Cotton Workers in Relation to Dust and Endotoxin Exposure. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2002, 46, 277–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Astrakianakis, G.; Seixas, N.S.; Ray, R.; Camp, J.E.; Gao, D.L.; Feng, Z.; Li, W.; Wernli, K.J.; Fitzgibbons, E.D.; Thomas, D.B.; et al. Lung Cancer Risk among Female Textile Workers Exposed to Endotoxin. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007, 99, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Rylander, R. The Role of Endotoxin for Reactions after Exposure to Cotton Dust. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1987, 12, 687–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Milton, D.K.; Wypij, D.; Kriebel, D.; Walters, M.D.; Hammond, S.K.; Evans, J.S. Endotoxin Exposure-Response in a Fiberglass Manufacturing Facility. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1996, 29, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Shi, Y.; Yadav, S.; Wang, F.; Wang, H. Endotoxin Promotes Adverse Effects of Amorphous Silica Nanoparticles on Lung Epithelial Cells in Vitro. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2010, 73, 748–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Douwes, J.; Versloot, P.; Hollander, A.; Heederik, D.; Doekes, G. Influence of Various Dust Sampling and Extraction Methods on the Measurement of Airborne Endotoxin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995, 61, 1763–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  134. Alwis, K.U.; Milton, D.K. Recombinant Factor C Assay for Measuring Endotoxin in House Dust: Comparison with LAL, and (1 → 3)-β-D-Glucans. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2006, 49, 296–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Dullah, E.C.; Ongkudon, C.M. Current Trends in Endotoxin Detection and Analysis of Endotoxin–Protein Interactions. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2017, 37, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Basinas, I.; Sigsgaard, T.; Erlandsen, M.; Andersen, N.T.; Takai, H.; Heederik, D.; Omland, Ø.; Kromhout, H.; Schlünssen, V. Exposure-Affecting Factors of Dairy Farmers’ Exposure to Inhalable Dust and Endotoxin. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2014, 58, 707–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Dungan, R.S. Airborne Endotoxin from Indoor and Outdoor Environments: Effect of Sample Dilution on the Kinetic Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) Assay. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2011, 8, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Ingalls, S.R. An Endotoxin Exposure in the Food Industry. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2003, 18, 318–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Simpson, J.C.; Niven, R.M.; Pickering, C.A.; Oldham, L.A.; Fletcher, A.M.; Francis, H.C. Comparative Personal Exposures to Organic Dusts and Endotoxin. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1999, 43, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Dawson, J.R. Minimizing Dust in Livestock Buildings: Possible Alternatives to Mechanical Separation. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1990, 47, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ellen, H.H.; Bottcher, R.W.; Takai, H. Dust Levels and Control Methods in Poultry Houses. J. Agric. Saf. Health 2000, 6, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Aarnink, A.J.A.; Mosquera, J.; Winkel, A.; Cambra-Lopez, M.; Van Harn, J.; De Buisonje, F.E.; Ogink, N.W.M. Options for Dust Reduction from Poultry Houses. In Proceedings of the Biennial Conference of the Australian Society for Engineering in Agriculture, Balina, NSW, Australia, 5–8 May 2009; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  143. Zheng, W.; Li, B.; Cao, W.; Zhang, G.; Yang, Z. Application of Neutral Electrolyzed Water Spray for Reducing Dust Levels in a Layer Breeding House. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2012, 62, 1329–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  144. Zheng, W.; Zhao, Y.; Xin, H.; Gates, R.S.; Li, B.; Zhang, Y.; Soupir, M.L. Airborne Particulate Matter and Culturable Bacteria Reduction from Spraying Slightly Acidic Electrolyzed Water in an Experimental Aviary Laying-Hen Housing Chamber. Trans. ASABE 2014, 57, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  145. Chai, L.; Zhao, Y.; Xin, H.; Wang, T.; Atilgan, A.; Soupir, M.; Liu, K. Reduction of Particulate Matter and Ammonia by Spraying Acidic Electrolyzed Water onto Litter of Aviary Hen Houses: A Lab-Scale Study. Trans. ASABE 2017, 60, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Takai, H.; Pedersen, S. A Comparison Study of Different Dust Control Methods in Pig Buildings. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2000, 16, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Wright, G.R.; Howieson, S.; McSharry, C.; McMahon, A.D.; Chaudhuri, R.; Thompson, J.; Donnelly, I.; Brooks, R.G.; Lawson, A.; Jolly, L.; et al. Effect of Improved Home Ventilation on Asthma Control and House Dust Mite Allergen Levels. Allergy 2009, 64, 1671–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  148. Kwon, K.S.; Lee, I.B.; Ha, T. Identification of Key Factors for Dust Generation in a Nursery Pig House and Evaluation of Dust Reduction Efficiency Using a CFD Technique. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 151, 28–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Pedersen, S.; Nonnenmann, M.; Rautiainen, R.; Demmers, T.G.M.; Banhazi, T.; Lyngbye, M. Dust in Pig Buildings. J. Agric. Saf. Health 2000, 6, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  150. Alonso, C.; Raynor, P.C.; Davies, P.R.; Morrison, R.B.; Torremorell, M. Evaluation of an Electrostatic Particle Ionization Technology for Decreasing Airborne Pathogens in Pigs. Aerobiologia 2016, 32, 405–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  151. Karjalainen, A.; Leppänen, M.; Ruokolainen, J.; Hyttinen, M.; Miettinen, M.; Säämänen, A.; Pasanen, P. Controlling Flour Dust Exposure by an Intervention Focused on Working Methods in Finnish Bakeries: A Case Study in Two Bakeries. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021, 28, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Meijster, T.; Tielemans, E.; Heederik, D. Effect of an Intervention Aimed at Reducing the Risk of Allergic Respiratory Disease in Bakers: Change in Flour Dust and Fungal Alpha-Amylase Levels. Occup. Environ. Med. 2009, 66, 543–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Falk, L.; Bozek, P.; Ceolin, L.; Levitsky, M.; Malik, O.; Patel, J.; Sobers, M.; Cole, D.C. Reducing Agate Dust Exposure in Khambhat, India: Protective Practices, Barriers, and Opportunities. J. Occup. Health 2019, 61, 442–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  154. Upadhyay, E.; Almass, A.A.M.; Dasgupta, N.; Rahman, S.; Kim, J.; Datta, M. Assessment of Occupational Health Hazards Due to Particulate Matter Originated from Spices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  155. Arcangeli, G.; Traversini, V.; Tomasini, E.; Baldassarre, A.; Lecca, L.I.; Galea, R.P.; Mucci, N. Allergic Anaphylactic Risk in Farming Activities: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, L.Y.; Riskowski, G.L. Effect of Ventilation Rate on Dust Spatial Distribution in a Mechanically Ventilated Airspace. Trans. ASAE 2000, 43, 1877–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Huang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Ren, X.; Yang, Y.; Gao, J.; Zou, Y. Ventilation Guidelines for Controlling Smoke, Dust, Droplets and Waste Heat: Four Representative Case Studies in Chinese Industrial Buildings. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 834–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Spaan, S.; Doekes, G.; Heederik, D.; Thorne, P.S.; Wouters, I.M. Effect of Extraction and Assay Media on Analysis of Airborne Endotoxin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 3804–3811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  159. Mitchell, D.C.; Schenker, M.B. Protection against Breathing Dust: Behavior over Time in Californian Farmers. J. Agric. Saf. Health 2008, 14, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Bentum, L.; Brobbey, L.K.; Adjei, R.O.; Osei-Tutu, P. Awareness of Occupational Hazards, and Attitudes and Practices towards the Use of Personal Protective Equipment among Informal Woodworkers: The Case of the Sokoban Wood Village in Ghana. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021, 28, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Asgedom, A.A.; Bråtveit, M.; Moen, B.E. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Related to Chemical Hazards and Personal Protective Equipment among Particleboard Workers in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  162. Schenker, M.B.; Orenstein, M.R.; Samuels, S.J. Use of Protective Equipment among California Farmers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2002, 42, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Reed, D.B.; Browning, S.R.; Westneat, S.C.; Kidd, P.S. Personal Protective Equipment Use and Safety Behaviors among Farm Adolescents: Gender Differences and Predictors of Work Practices. J. Rural Health 2006, 22, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Manjula, R.; Praveena, R.; Clevin, R.; Ghattargi, C.; Dorle, A.; Lalitha, D. Effects of Occupational Dust Exposure on the Health Status of Portland Cement Factory Workers. Int. J. Med. Public Health 2013, 3, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Clinical symptoms caused by exposure to endotoxin.
Figure 1. Clinical symptoms caused by exposure to endotoxin.
Appliedchem 03 00002 g001
Table 1. Microorganisms in dust of different animal housing and industries.
Table 1. Microorganisms in dust of different animal housing and industries.
LocationGeographical LocationMicroorganism Species PresentReference
Swine and poultry housesEuropeBacillus, Streptomyces, and thermophilic bacteria[21]
Poultry farmsEgyptBacillus spp., Micrococcus spp., Proteus spp., Pseudomonas spp., Staphylococcus spp., E. coli and Clostridia spp.[62]
Pea moss factoryCanadaPenicillium and Torulomyces[63]
Potato processing plantsPolandCorynebacteria, Pseudomonas spp, and Acinetobacter calcoaceticus[64]
Settle dustIndiaPantoea agglomerans[65]
Animal buildingUSAAcinetobacter, Bacteroides, Enterobacter, Moraxella, Pasteurella, Pseudomonas and Vibrio[66]
Settle grain dustUSAPseudomonas, Serratia, Acinetobacter, Klebsiella and P. agglomerans[67]
Poultry farmsPolandAcinetobacter, Enterobacter, Escherichia, Pantoea species and Klebsiella genera[68]
Gin housesIndiaEnterobacter agglomerans, E. cloacae and E. aerogenes species[69]
Table 5. Different endotoxin detection techniques and filter conditions.
Table 5. Different endotoxin detection techniques and filter conditions.
Sampler TypeSampling Rate, L/minFilter TypeStandard UsedStorage Temperature for SamplesAbsorbanceReference
Button aerosol samplers425 mm binder-free glass fiberE. coli 055: B5−20405 nm[17]
IOM sampler225 mm Glass filters,-Room temperature405 nm[19]
IOM sampler225 mm glass fiber-−20405 nm[20]
Technischer Überwachungsverein (TÜV)3.537 mm glass fiber filtersE. coli 6 standard-405 nm[21]
AP-2A personal sampler237 mm glass fiberE. coli 0113:H10--[23]
Plastic conical inhalable samplers3.537 mm glass fiber filters-−20-[24]
PAS6 sampling heads225 mm glass fiber filters-−20-[25]
-237 mm glass fiber filterE. coli O55:B5--[48]
Vertical elutriators7.437 mm Glass fiber filtersE. coli--[69]
GSP samplers3.5Teflon filterE. coli O55:B5−80-[72]
Gilian nylon cyclone1.737 mm polycarbonate membrane filters-4405 nm[88]
Three-stage cassette1.7PVC membrane---[92]
Sierra-Anderson High volume cascade impactor1270Glass microfiberE. coli 0111: B4--[93]
Conical inhalable sampler3.537 mm glass fiber---[94,134]
Plastic inhalable conical sampler3.537 mm glass fiberE. coli (O55:B5)−20-[95]
Thoracic parallel particle impactor (PPI)-T237 mm glass fiber filter-4-[96]
IOM sampler225 mm glass microfiber---[97]
SKC button sampler4Teflon 25 mmE. coli 055: B5-440 nm[98]
SKC Button samplers425 mm PVC filtersUnited States Reference Standard EC-6−70-[100]
Button Aerosol sampler2.537 mm glass fiberE. coli 055: B5-405 nm[101]
PAS-6 inhalable dust sampler225 mm glass fiber filtersE. coli−20-[102]
Harvard impactors1037 mm Teflon filters-−20-[103]
25 mm three-piece conductive cassettes2Glass fiber filters---[104]
Inhalable dust sampler and Impinger2--4-[105]
Gillian gilair 52.1Polycarbonate---[106]
Conductive plastic inhalable conical sampler3.537 mm glass-fiber (GFA) filter-−20-[107]
-1.5–237 mm glass fiber-Dry ice-[108]
BGI GK2.69 cyclones1.6Glass fiber filters-−20-[109]
Casella Bedford-CellularE. coli−20405 nm[110]
Button aerosol samplers4-E. coli O55:B5--[136]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chhetry, B.S.K.; Dewangan, K.N.; Mahato, D.K.; Kumar, P. Endotoxins Affecting Human Health during Agricultural Practices: An Overview. AppliedChem 2023, 3, 11-31.

AMA Style

Chhetry BSK, Dewangan KN, Mahato DK, Kumar P. Endotoxins Affecting Human Health during Agricultural Practices: An Overview. AppliedChem. 2023; 3(1):11-31.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chhetry, B. Surya Kumar, Krishna Narayan Dewangan, Dipendra Kumar Mahato, and Pradeep Kumar. 2023. "Endotoxins Affecting Human Health during Agricultural Practices: An Overview" AppliedChem 3, no. 1: 11-31.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop