Hygienic assessment of working conditions and measures to preserve the health of workers in modern livestock complexes

Introduction. The impact on livestock workers of a complex of harmful industrial conditions is associated with health risks. The high level of general morbidity and an increase in the number of occupational diseases, as well as a decrease in labor productivity, emphasize the need to develop effective measures to improve working conditions and protect workers' health.

The study aims to devise a set of measures designed to prevent the negative impact of hazardous working conditions on employees in modern livestock facilities.

Materials and methods. Hygienic assessment of working conditions and analysis of the results of periodic medical examinations, survey data of employees of modern livestock complexes were carried out.

Results. The study showed that concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan and ammonia in the workplace of livestock complexes exceed the maximum permissible concentration by 1.22–2.0 times, and dust by 1.62–18.5 times. The work of livestock breeders is associated with significant physical exertion. The working conditions of the animal care workers, the feed preparation shop, and the maternity ward were the most unfavorable (general assessment of working conditions 3.2). The highest incidence was recorded among employees of the feed preparation shop (76.4–76.8%).

Limitations. The study is limited by the number of employees, the number of research objects, and the volume of data on the results of periodic medical examinations.

Conclusions. The results of the study serve as the basis for the development of effective measures to improve working conditions and preserve the health of workers in modern livestock complexes and increase labor productivity.

Ethics. The study was conducted in compliance with ethical principles, including voluntary participation of workers and confidentiality of their data.

Acknowledgement. The author expresses gratitude to the workers of the livestock complexes LLC "Khastinapur Livestock Complex" and the "OTABEK-D" farm for their participation in the study, as well as to colleagues from the Bukhara State Medical Institute for their support in conducting the research.

Funding. The study had no funding.

Conflict of interest. The author declares no conflict of interest.

Received: 27.05.2025 / Accepted: 15.09.2025 / Published: 05.10.2025

1. O’Brien C., Kingston L., Plant B.J., Coffey A. Lung health in farming: a scoping review. J. Agromedicine. 2023; 28(3): 335–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2023.2178573

2. Sturm E.T., Castro C., Mendez-Colmenares A., Duffy J., Burzynska A.Z., Stallones L., et al. Risk factors for brain health in agricultural work: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19(6): 3373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063373

3. Estrada-Muñoz C., Madrid-Casaca H., Salazar-Sepúlveda G., Contreras-Barraza N., Iturra-González J., Vega-Muñoz A. Musculoskeletal symptoms and assessment of ergonomic risk factors on a coffee farm. Appl. Sci. 2022; 12(15): 7703. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157703

4. De-Benavides-Jiménez S., Gómez-Galán M., Rubio-Romero J., Díaz-Pérez M., Callejón-Ferre Á. Physical load assessment of greenhouse cucumber farmers using OWAS and RULA methods. Saf Sci. 2025; 187: 106838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106838

5. Karimi A., Dianat I., Barkhordari A., Yusefzade I., Rohani-Rasaf M. A multicomponent ergonomic intervention involving individual and organisational changes for improving musculoskeletal outcomes and exposure risks among dairy workers. Appl. Ergon. 2020; 88: 103159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103159

6. Osborne A., Blake C., Fullen B.M., Meredith D., Phelan J., McNamara J. et al. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among farmers: a systematic review. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2011; 55(2): 143–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.21033

7. Soares C.O., Pereira B.F., Gomes M.V.P., Marcondes L.P., De Campos Gomes F., De Melo-Neto J.S. Fatores de prevenção de distúrbios osteomusculares relacionados ao trabalho: revisão narrativa. Rev. Bras. Med. Trab. 2019; 17(3): 415–30. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z1679443520190360

8. Seidel J., Magzamen S., Wang Y.H., Neujahr V., Schaeffer J.W. Lessons from dairy farmers for occupational allergy and respiratory disease. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 2023; 23(6): 325–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-023-01081-2

9. Jutel M., Mosnaim G.S., Bernstein J.A., Del Giacco S., Khan D.A., Nadeau K.C., et al. The One Health approach for allergic diseases and asthma. Allergy. 2023; 78(7): 1777–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.15755

10. Rahimian F., Najimi M., Khodadadi H., Vardanjani H.M., Yousefinejad S., Soleimani E. Respiratory impairments in workers of a modern livestock complex: a 6-year longitudinal study. Ann. Toxicol. Anal. 2023; 35(4): 319–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxac.2023.06.005

11. Simões M., Janssen N., Heederik D.J., Smit L.A., Vermeulen R., Huss A. Residential proximity to livestock animals and mortality from respiratory diseases in The Netherlands: a prospective census-based cohort study. Environ. Int. 2022; 161: 107140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107140

12. Sohrabi Y., Sabet S., Yousefinejad S., Rahimian F., Aryaie M., Soleimani E. et al. Pulmonary function and respiratory symptoms in workers exposed to respirable silica dust: a historical cohort study. Heliyon. 2022; 8(11): e11642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11642

13. Schlünssen V., Mandrioli D., Pega F., Momen N.C., Ádám B., Chen W. et al. The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos, and coal): a systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury. Environ Int. 2023; 178: 107980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.107980

14. Havelka Z., Kunes R., Kononets Y., Stokes J.E., Smutny L., Olsan P., et al. Technology of microclimate regulation in organic and energy-sustainable livestock production. Agriculture. 2022; 12(10): 1563. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12101563

15. Farfalla A.A., Beseler C., Achutan C., Rautiainen R. Coexposure to solvents and noise as a risk factor for hearing loss in agricultural workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2022; 64(9): 754–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002571

16. Rostamabadi A., Jahangiri M., Mansourabadi B.N., Javid M., Ghorbani M., Banaee S. Prevalence of chronic diseases and occupational injuries and their influence on the health-related quality of life among farmers working in small-farm enterprises. J. Agromedicine. 2019; 24(3): 248–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2019.1592047

17. Caneschi A., Bardhi A., Barbarossa A., Zaghini A. The use of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in veterinary medicine, a complex phenomenon: a narrative review. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(3): 487. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12030487

18. Jeżak K., Kozajda A. Occurrence and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on animal farms and in their vicinity in Poland and Ukraine — review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021; 29(7): 9533–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17773-z

19. Gržinić G., Piotrowicz-Cieślak A., Klimkowicz-Pawlas A., Górny R.L., Ławniczek-Wałczyk A., Piechowicz L., et al. Intensive poultry farming: a review of the impact on the environment and human health. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022; 858: 160014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160014

20. Korath A.D.J., Janda J., Untersmayr E., Sokolowska M., Feleszko W., Agache I. et al. One Health: EAACI position paper on coronaviruses at the human-animal interface, with a specific focus on comparative and zoonotic aspects of SARS-CoV-2. Allergy. 2021; 77(1): 55-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14991

21. Di Francesco J., Isenhower E., Fausak E.D., Silva-Del-Rio N., Pires A.F.A. A scoping review of studies reporting biosecurity practices in small and backyard farms raising livestock or poultry in developed countries, 2000–2022. Prev. Vet. Med. 2025; 236: 106423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106423

22. Nuvey F.S., Fink G., Hattendorf J., Haydon D.T., Fokou G, Addo K.K. et al. Effects of community action on animal vaccination uptake, antimicrobial usage, and farmers’ wellbeing in Ghana: study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial. One Health. 2024; 20:100952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100952

23. Kiayima K.D., Etter E., Chaminuka P., Delabouglise A., Fosgate G.T. Assessment of communal farmers’ knowledge of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) within the FMD protection zone with vaccination of Limpopo and Mpumalanga Provinces, South Africa. Prev. Vet. Med. 2025; 238: 106468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106468

24. Mia M.M., Hasan M., Pory F.S. Occupational exposure to livestock and risk of tuberculosis and brucellosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. One Health. 2022; 15: 100432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100432

25. Van Doorn D., Richardson N., Meredith D., Blake C., McNamara J. Study protocol: evaluation of the ‘real-world’ Farmers Have Hearts — Cardiovascular Health Program. Prev. Med. Rep. 2022; 30: 102010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.102010

26. Ibrohimov K.I. Hygienic assessment of factors affecting working conditions at meat production enterprises. Int. J. Mod. Med. 2024; 3(11): 25–33. https://doi.org/10.55640/ijmm-03-11-05

27. Ibrohimov K.I. Modern interpretation of hygienic problems of working conditions in livestock complexes (literature review). J. Humanit. Nat. Sci. 2024; (16): 132–8. https://journals.tnmu.uz/index.php/gtfj/article/view/821/862