ArticleJournal of agricultural safety and health2017
Assessment of Interventions to Improve Air Quality in a Livestock Building.
Article in Journal of agricultural safety and health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Use of prototype side stream filtration system to control dust levels in a commercial swine farrowing building.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined the effectiveness of engineering controls to reduce contaminant concentrations in a swine farrowing room during winter in the U.S. Midwest. Over two winters, changes in air quality were evaluated following installation of a 1700 m3 h-1 (1000 cfm) recirculating ventilation system to provide 5.4 air exchanges per hour. This system incorporated one of two readily available dust control systems, one based on filtration and the other on cyclonic treatment. A second treatment evaluated reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) associated with replacement of standard, unvented gas-fired heaters with new vented heaters, installed between the two winter test periods. The concentrations of carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide were negligible in the test room. Although concentrations of ammonia increased over each winter test period, the increase was unrelated to increased air movement from the new recirculating ventilation system. The dust concentrations were significantly reduced by the ventilation system for both inhalable dust (23% to 44% with filtration, 33% with cyclone) and respirable dust (32% with filtration, 20% with cyclone), significant (p 0.024) for all except respirable dust using the cyclone (p = 0.141). The filtration unit is recommended to improve livestock building air quality because it was more effective than the cyclone unit at reducing respirable dust. Carbon dioxide concentrations were significantly lower with vented heaters (mean = 1400 ppm, SD = 330 ppm) compared to unvented heaters (mean = 2480 ppm, SD = 160 ppm). A 940 ppm reduction in CO2 was attributed to the use of the vented heater, after accounting for differences in outdoor temperatures and animal housing over both test periods. The benefits of readily available technology to significantly reduce concentrations of dust and CO2 demonstrates useful control options to improve air quality in swine buildings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.