From the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill one wonders why they have not thrown the PM10 hammer (or ax) at trees to save humans from their terrible effects /sarc.
Researchers pinpoint how trees play role in smog production
After years of scientific uncertainty and speculation, researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill show exactly how trees help create one of society’s predominant environmental and health concerns: air pollution.
It has long been known that trees produce and emit isoprene, an abundant molecule in the air known to protect leaves from oxygen damage and temperature fluctuations. However, in 2004, researchers, contrary to popular assumptions, revealed that isoprene was likely involved in the production of particulate matter, tiny particles that can get lodged in lungs, lead to lung cancer and asthma, and damage other tissues, not to mention the environment.
But exactly how was anybody’s guess.
Jason Surratt, assistant professor of environmental sciences and engineering at the Gillings School of Global Public Health, now reveals one mechanism by which isoprene contributes to the production of these tiny, potentially health-damaging particles.
The study found that isoprene, once it is chemically altered via exposure to the sun, reacts with man-made nitrogen oxides to create particulate matter. Nitrogen oxides are pollutants created by cars, trucks, aircrafts, coal plants and other large scale sources.
“The work presents a dramatic new wrinkle in the arguments for reducing man-made pollutants worldwide,” said Surratt, whose work was published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Isoprene evolved to protect trees and plants, but because of the presence of nitrogen oxides, it is involved in producing this negative effect on health and the environment.”
“We certainly can’t cut down all the trees,” Surratt adds, “but we can work on reducing these man-made emissions to cut down the production of fine particulate matter.”
With the precise mechanism now revealed, researchers can plug it into air quality models for better predicting episodes of air pollution and potential effects on earth’s climate. The advance would allow researchers and environmental agencies to evaluate and make regulatory decisions that impact public health and climate change.
“We observe nature’s quirks, but we must always consider that our actions do have repercussions,” said Surratt. “It’s the interaction between these natural and man-made emissions that produces this air pollution, smog and fine particulate matter – and now we know one reason for how it happens.”
WUWT (readers and writers) are pretty cynical with regard to one issue of science and pollution — the effects of CO2 on planetary warming, and the models (and modelers) that study those effects. And there is good reason to be cynical, not that CO2 (and other emissions such as black carbon) don’t cause warming, but rather than the hand has been overplayed, in some cases in very unscientific ways.
So it comes as a bit of a surprise to see that WUWT appears to accept without much question that all tiny particles, regardless of chemical composition, must be harmful, must cause heart attacks, early death, and so on.
Yet the chemical makeup of these particles differs greatly. We have known for decades that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in diesel are carcinogenic and biologically active, they react with cells in the human body and create harmful substances. The science on other types of particles is not quite as strong. There is concern that tiny metal particles – from smelting, brake wear, engine wear, for example – might cause harm inside the body, when breathed into the lungs.
Other particles may not be particularly harmful. While epidemiology suggests that all particles are likely to be harmful, toxicology does not. We still have a ways to go to understand which types of tiny airborne particles are most harmful, and which might not be.
REPLY: I’m only going on what the press release says:
-Anthony
I read many many years ago that humans died many times from breathing to much smoke in their caves . . but it did not say how many it kept from dying from the cold especially the very young. All sides of an issue must be evaluated to determine the net effects to human life lengths.
People continue to live longer – even in third world nations.
Life is a terminal illness.
Author Unknown.
I died one day today.
Does Malaysia have an American style EPA? They need to look into this. Ditto Indonesia which has carried out massive deforestation to make way for oil palm plantations to help out in the biofuels revolution. Oh the irony. 🙁
Yes, Ronald Reagan was right. A pine tree produces lots of pollution, but environmentalist could never understand basic biology.
I live in Georgia and I hate pine trees. When strong winds come up, they tend to fall on houses,and when spring comes around, they coat EVERYTHING with an ugly, yellow pollen. Plus, they drop needles, cones, and other crap all the time. They are the closest thing to a weed in the tree family.
“LKMiller says:
April 25, 2013 at 9:36 am
Understand that Carolina (UNC Chapel Hill) is the bed-wetting, liberal arts college in North Carolina. The College of Forestry is located at NC State.
Go Wolfpack!” Orange County Community College is the source of much disappointment: GO PACK
Not only do you get isoprene for particulate, you get VOC’s for photochemical smog. The haze from the Great Smokey Mountains is not all particulate http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/units/urban/local-resources/downloads/vocrates.pdf
John,
Good comments. In fact, particles like these could just as well be good for us. I have read that kids who ingest dirt tend to be healthier. [I don’t have a source so this is just hearsay, but it makes sense.]
Our bodies work to combat the harmful effects of the environment. The more we are exposed to, the better [so long as we survive, of course]. If there is less to combat, the immune system’s energy is diverted to other things. I have never bought into the claims that second-hand and third-hand smoke is a cause of lung cancer, and I believe there are no legitimate studies which prove that.
At least in the West, the air and the water are much cleaner now than a century ago. But the EPA is aggrandizing it’s power and control over the economy, so it looks for issues like this to rally around. And the average citizen, dumbed-down by decades of anti-science teaching in government schools, is easy to scare with words like “isoprene” [“What’s that?!“], and “…tiny particles that can get lodged in lungs, lead to lung cancer and asthma…”: BOO!
Scare the populace. Then open the door to their salvation. That only requires opening our wallets a little wider. Now you’re safe… until the next scare.
What’s their problem? Just add a suitable catalyst, heat the atmosphere, and all isoprene will coalesce back into rubber.
Yes, Ronald Reagan was right, specifically regarding tropospheric ozone. There is more low level (tropospheric) ozone now than there was, say, 100 years ago (this low level ozone isn’t to be confused with stratospheric ozone). That is because low level ozone is created via atmospheric chemistry by the mixture of oxides of nitrogen and volatile hydrocarbon gases, in the presence of bright sun. The volatile organic gases can be either from gasoline (toluene, xylene, etc.) or from vegetation (isoprene, turpene, etc.).
People didn’t realize that emissions from trees could contribute to ozone until it was discovered by, among others, William Chameides, who is testifying with Judith Curry before the House of Representatives today (see the previous WUWT article), in the mid-1980s. Hence the Reagan quote. See this link for discussion:
http://www.leaderu.com/science/ozone.html
Regarding Chameides’ discovery, here is a sentence from the link:
“Several years ago William Chameides of the Georgia Institute of Technology [now at Duke – ed.]studied satellite images of Atlanta and found that 57 percent of the city was wooded. He and his co-workers concluded that Atlanta’s trees emitted at least as many hydrocarbons as the city’s cars, trucks, buses and factories.”
In California’s chaparral communities the plant ceanothus has leaves that a coated in flammable oils to encourage fire! Blame humans anyway via climate change.
http://www.nps.gov/fire/wildland-fire/learning-center/fire-in-depth/different-ecosystems/chaparral-sw.cfm
Here we go again. Hang on a minute. Two things . . . .
1. Isoprene (C5H8) release from trees only increases dramatically with a rise in temperature and maximises around 40oC. As it’s getting so much colder these days – then there’s no need for alarm.
2. I’m not a chemist – but I have been asthmatic for 52 years. Up until the mid 70’s, I believe a chemical carbonyl derivative of isoprene (Isoprenalin Sulphate BP C11H17NO3) was used worldwide as an asthma relieving agent found in Pharmaceutical Medihalers. It worked absolutely fine but was withdrawn following medical evidence that the drug caused deaths when used excessively and also (even under correct dosage) stunted some people’s growth. It was later replaced with Salbutamol. Isoprenaline Sulphate (or sulfate) is still used today to treat cardiac symptoms.
So, does this mean that isoprene from trees causes asthma, then, when chemical formulas are modified, relieves asthma? Oh, and perhaps it might also cause the growth of trees to be stunted – or worse, trees die if there’s too much isoprene. Watch out for lots of tiny dead trees in future causing pollution. Maybe Isoprene has no connection Isoprenalin. Probably.
Jesus. Just, how much CAGW grant money did these guys get to research this drivvle? Please.
There was a study reported in Science Daily in 2001 about Australia, smog, trees, isoprene hydrocarbons.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010109223032.htm
Box of Rox April 25, 2013 at 9:42
Yes, I like your remark about the bison. Few people realize the size of some populations and the impact they have had on the environment. Passenger pigeon flocks were massive and reportedly broke limbs off trees (sorry no reference) but often missed is the incredible size of some insect populations. Melanoplus spretus was a significant species just before the end of the 19th century.
http://bugguide.net/node/view/98442
I think few will wish to return Melanoplus spretus to the great planes. One swarm was estimated to contain 3 trillion individuals. I don’t know how much spretus weighed but that is one heck of a lot of biomass. You can bet they ate a lot and ” degraded” everything in their path. Yet, there is litte evidence they were even here, and that is something to ponder.
If our EPA is to be of value, they have to serve The People. As it exists now, there is every indication they have some pristine, unspoiled, fantacy world in mind that exists in their imagined uber world that really never has existed. Unfortunately, their conception of the world may not include people!!
North America has been changed to serve the humans who occupy it. The same exists in Europe and Asia. When bison dried up the Republican river, there was no committee to establish limits on population etc, etc. Of course we have the capacity to change our behavior where bison did not. The quality of life for the bison down stream certainly suffered. I am sure it sucked to be them.
The problem isn’t unique. As a neighbor stated succintly to me when I first moved to this part of the West: “you can be shot for taking water from the irrigation ditch. Just so you know. ” If we indeed need an EPA it is to study and solve just such problems, but the standard must be to serve The People. Serving the environment doesn’t cut it. That is meaningless. What environment? The one that existed when the Republican River dried up because too many bison drank the water or the environment when spretus ate everything in the path of their swarms? No, it has to be to maintain the quality necessary to support humanity. That is where we are now and is the problem at hand. If we fail as a species, we will be gone just as certain as spretus, and eventually leave no trace just as they have none.
““It’s the interaction between these natural and man-made emissions…”
Since when are man-made emissions un-natural??? Are not people a part of nature?
John says:
April 25, 2013 at 10:24 am
…. The science on other types of particles is not quite as strong. There is concern that tiny metal particles – from smelting, brake wear, engine wear, for example – might cause harm inside the body, when breathed into the lungs.
Other particles may not be particularly harmful. While epidemiology suggests that all particles are likely to be harmful, toxicology does not. We still have a ways to go to understand which types of tiny airborne particles are most harmful, and which might not be.
Small particles can be mechanically damaging rather than toxic. Breathing fine glass or mineral dust for instance scars lung tissue and reduces lung efficiency – i.e. silicosis, emphysema, etc. Metals can also scar the lungs, and they are generally also chemically reactive, and react more efficiently in a moist environments – like lungs. Your lungs are equipped with physiological defenses against most of these problems and work well for low level amounts. AIrborn flour and sugar powder are seriously poor inhalants as well being explosive. Wood dust from cabinetry making or or carpentry can also be hard on the system, and some types of wood will be toxic as well. The most reasonable conclusion is that excess air-born particulates in significant amounts are not a good thing, whether they are toxins or merely mechanically damaging. “Excess” can be difficult to determine. As a rule of thumb, if the dust is visible in the air, you should take steps to protect your self.
I have to confess that my favorite mineral specimen is a massive piece of tremolite (an asbestos mineral) with largish realgar or orpiment crystals – arsenic sulfides and quite toxic. It is entertaining to show it to environmentalist acquaintances and watch their eyes open in shock that I would handle something so “dangerous” without protection. They frequently look dubious if I tell them that the stone is only hazardous if eaten or inhaled.
Tell the EPA to switch from pines to fir trees and they’d be calling PETA for advice. They’re that clueless.
@RockyRoad: “switch from pines to fir trees and they’d be calling PETA for advice”
LOL! That gets the laugh of the day award!
For purple mountains majesty, above the fruited plains.
The poem Pikes Peak was penned in 1895 and subsequently became the lyrics to the song America The Beautiful. It was not written about man made pollution. The natural varieties of smog have been with us since God made dirt.
http://youtu.be/gOvA-Hn4_ZM
@Duster
Yes, you’re right, toxicity isn’t the only issues with tiny particles, sometimes they can be abrasive as well. As you say, silicosis in a factory when the airborne levels of silica are high. You probably remember that California, maybe 20 years ago, forced businesses that sold sand for sandboxes to label the sand as a possible carcinogen, because sand is mostly silica? A case of not understanding dosage.
My sense is that the types of outdoor particles people breathe every day is that for most of them, toxicity is the main issue, whereas abrasion may be more of an occupational issue. Is that your view as well?
Gee, if only the Human species had somehow evolved the physical mechanisms to handle a fair amount of smoke and particulates, say by filtering…
ACHOO!
Ah, excuse me.
My understanding is that isoprene is the building block for the family of terpenes, among which is included turpintine. If you have ever been in a coniferous forest during a hot summer day, you cannot mistake the overwhelming turpentine-like smell. The air is heavily laden and the fire hazard warnings are generally in the red. When you have a situation similar to the vapor collection over a pan of gasoline, it is not hard to imagine why. And I would suggest that forest fires produce lots of airborne particulate matter hazardous to inhale!
This is the perfect scapegoat , now that global warming doesnt fly we just put it on pollution , not possible to debunk , I foresee no more carbon trade , I forsee pollution units trade 🙂
UNC “researchers” are simply regurgitating same old stuff from decades ago to garner lucrative grants promoting the eco-agenda. Those 400 ft. Cuisinart machines with thousands of miles of HV transmission lines produce prodigious amounts of ‘man made’ nitrous oxides and ozone. Where is THAT study?
Since humans and “evergreen” trees have co-evolved for quite a while in northern climates, I suspect that lighter skinned people really sensitive to such chemistry have been weeded out. Darker skin transplants from areas NOT populated by conifers might not be so lucky.
Would be an interesting topic to study.
There must be millions of non-smoking, non-grease-monkey foresters who suffer from terminal lung cancer. Oh the humanity!
Apparently, these harmful particles are not what drives our sinuses crazy in the Spring, right? The sinus causing particles are detectable by humans. But these newly discovered harmful particles are not detectable even by foresters?
Does it help if you work in the deep woods where there is little sunlight?
Michael J. Dunn says:
April 25, 2013 at 12:32 pm
“My understanding is that isoprene is the building block for the family of terpenes, among which is included turpintine. If you have ever been in a coniferous forest during a hot summer day, you cannot mistake the overwhelming turpentine-like smell.”
That odor is produced in its purest form at points where a tree has been cut or bruised. It is the odor of Pine resin.
Has anyone else noticed that nitrous oxide emissions have been on the decline since the mid-90s?