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

Objectives: Occupational exposure limits for hydrogen sulphide (H(2)S) 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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Main Author: Elwood, Mark
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: MDPI 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001002/
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062866
id ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:8001002
record_format openpolar
spelling ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:8001002 2023-05-15T16:51:12+02:00 The Scientific Basis for Occupational Exposure Limits for Hydrogen Sulphide—A Critical Commentary Elwood, Mark 2021-03-11 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001002/ https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062866 en eng MDPI http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001002/ http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062866 © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). CC-BY Int J Environ Res Public Health Review Text 2021 ftpubmed https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062866 2021-04-04T01:02:16Z Objectives: Occupational exposure limits for hydrogen sulphide (H(2)S) 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 H(2)S 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. Text Iceland PubMed Central (PMC) New Zealand International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 6 2866
institution Open Polar
collection PubMed Central (PMC)
op_collection_id ftpubmed
language English
topic Review
spellingShingle Review
Elwood, Mark
The Scientific Basis for Occupational Exposure Limits for Hydrogen Sulphide—A Critical Commentary
topic_facet Review
description Objectives: Occupational exposure limits for hydrogen sulphide (H(2)S) 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 H(2)S 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.
format Text
author Elwood, Mark
author_facet Elwood, Mark
author_sort Elwood, Mark
title The Scientific Basis for Occupational Exposure Limits for Hydrogen Sulphide—A Critical Commentary
title_short The Scientific Basis for Occupational Exposure Limits for Hydrogen Sulphide—A Critical Commentary
title_full The Scientific Basis for Occupational Exposure Limits for Hydrogen Sulphide—A Critical Commentary
title_fullStr The Scientific Basis for Occupational Exposure Limits for Hydrogen Sulphide—A Critical Commentary
title_full_unstemmed The Scientific Basis for Occupational Exposure Limits for Hydrogen Sulphide—A Critical Commentary
title_sort scientific basis for occupational exposure limits for hydrogen sulphide—a critical commentary
publisher MDPI
publishDate 2021
url http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001002/
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062866
geographic New Zealand
geographic_facet New Zealand
genre Iceland
genre_facet Iceland
op_source Int J Environ Res Public Health
op_relation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001002/
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062866
op_rights © 2021 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
op_rightsnorm CC-BY
op_doi https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062866
container_title International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
container_volume 18
container_issue 6
container_start_page 2866
_version_ 1766041301818540032