Air pollution and livestock production

The air in a livestock farming environment contains high concentrations of dust particles and gaseous pollutants. The total inhalable dust can enter the nose and mouth during normal breathing and the thoracic dust can reach into the lungs. However, it is the respirable dust particles that can penetrate further into the gas-exchange region, making it the most hazardous dust component. Prolonged exposure to high concentrations of dust particles can lead to respiratory health issues for both livestock and farming staff. Ammonia, an example of a gaseous pollutant, is derived from the decomposition of nitrous compounds. Increased exposure to ammonia may also have an effect on the health of humans and livestock. There are a number of technologies available to ensure exposure to these pollutants is minimised. Through proactive means, (the optimal design and management of livestock buildings) air quality can be improved to reduce the likelihood of risks associated with sub-optimal air quality. Once air problems have taken hold, other reduction methods need to be applied utilising a more reactive approach. A key requirement for the control of concentration and exposure of airborne pollutants to an acceptable level is to be able to conduct real-time measurements of these pollutants. This paper provides a review of airborne pollution including methods to both measure and control the concentration of pollutants in livestock buildings

Automated Detection of Usage Errors in non-native English Writing

In an investigation of the use of a novelty detection algorithm for identifying inappropriate word combinations in a raw English corpus, we employ an unsupervised detection algorithm based on the one- class support vector machines (OC-SVMs) and extract sentences containing word sequences whose frequency of appearance is significantly low in native English writing. Combined with n-gram language models and document categorization techniques, the OC-SVM classifier assigns given sentences into two different groups; the sentences containing errors and those without errors. Accuracies are 79.30 % with bigram model, 86.63 % with trigram model, and 34.34 % with four-gram model