The Scientific Basis for Occupational Exposure Limits for Hydrogen Sulphide—A Critical Commentary

• Published in: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
• Main Author: Mark Elwood
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute 2021
• Subjects: hydrogen sulphide; occupation; health; exposure limits; review; New Zealand; Iceland
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062866

Objectives: Occupational exposure limits for hydrogen sulphide (H2S) vary considerably; three expert group reports, published from 2006 to 2010, each recommend different limits. Some jurisdictions are considering substantial reductions. Methods: This review assesses the scientific evidence used in these recommendations and presents a new systematic review of human studies from 2006–20, identifying 33 studies. Results: The three major reports all give most weight to two sets of studies: of physiological effects in human volunteers, and of effects in the nasal passages of rats and mice. The human studies were done in one laboratory over 20 years ago and give inconsistent results. The breathing style and nasal anatomy of rats and mice would make them more sensitive than humans to inhaled agents. Each expert group applied different uncertainly factors. From these reports and the further literature review, no clear evidence of detrimental health effects from chronic occupational exposures specific to H2S was found. Detailed studies of individuals in communities with natural sources in New Zealand have shown no detrimental effects. Studies in Iceland and Italy show some associations; these and various other small studies need verification. Conclusions: The scientific justification for lowering occupational exposure limits is very limited. There is no clear evidence, based on currently available studies, that lower limits will protect the health of workers further than will the current exposure limits used in most countries. Further review and assessment of relevant evidence is justified before exposure limits are set.