What soot-covered, hundred-year-old birds can tell us about saving the environment
Museum collections track soot in the atmosphere throughout the 20th century
Horned Larks are cute little songbirds with white bellies and yellow chins–at least, now they are. A hundred years ago, at the height of urban smoke pollution in the US, their pale feathers were stained dark gray by the soot in the atmosphere. A new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that the discoloration of birds in museum collections can be used to trace the amount of black carbon in the air over time and the effects of environmental policy upon pollution.
“The soot on these birds’ feathers allowed us to trace the amount of black carbon in the air over time, and we found that the air at the turn of the century was even more polluted than scientists previously thought,” says Shane DuBay, a graduate student at The Field Museum and the University of Chicago and one of the authors of the study. He and co-author Carl Fuldner, also a graduate student at UChicago, analyzed over a thousand birds collected over the last 135 years to determine and quantify the effects of soot in the air over cities in the Rust Belt.
“If you look at Chicago today, the skies are blue. But when you look at pictures of Beijing and Dehli, you get a sense for what US cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh were once like,” says DuBay. “Using museum collections, we were able to reconstruct that history.”

Ornithologists at The Field Museum have long known that bird specimens in the collection from the early 1900s were visibly darker than expected, and atmospheric soot was the suspect.
“When you touch these birds, you get traces of soot on your hands. We’d wear white gloves while handling them, and the gloves would come away stained, like when you get ink on your fingertips reading a newspaper,” says DuBay. That’s because the soot in the air clung to the birds’ feathers like dust to a feather duster. “These birds were acting as air filters moving through the environment,” adds DuBay.
Birds were also ideal candidates for the study because they molt and grow a new set of feathers every year, meaning that the soot on them had only been accumulating for the past year when they were collected. And there was an apparent trend: old birds were dirtier, and new birds were cleaner.
To measure the changes in sootiness over the years, DuBay and Fuldner turned to a novel approach: photographing the birds and measuring the light reflected off of them. Fuldner, a photo historian who focuses on images of the environment, worked with DuBay to develop a method for analyzing the birds using photography. The birds photographed, numbering over a thousand, were all from five species that breed in the Manufacturing Belt and have lots of white feathers that showed off the soot.
The images, depicting the contrast between the soiled gray birds and the clean white ones, are dramatic. “The photographs give the project a visceral dimension–you make a connection to the images,” says Fuldner.
DuBay and Fuldner plotted the amount of light bouncing off the birds’ feathers according to the year the birds were collected. To make sense of their findings, the pair of researchers then delved into the social history of urban air pollution.
“The changes in the birds reflect efforts, first at the city level but eventually growing into a national movement, to address the smoke problem,” says Fuldner. “We are actually able to go back and see how effective certain policy approaches were.”
“We were surprised by the precision we were able to achieve,” says DuBay. “The soot on the birds closely tracks the use of coal over time. During the Great Depression, there’s a sharp drop in black carbon on the birds because coal consumption dropped — once we saw that, it clicked.”
The amount of soot on the birds rebounded around World War II, when wartime manufacturing drove up coal use, and dropped off quickly after the war, around when people in the Rust Belt began heating their homes with natural gas piped in from the West rather than with coal.
“The fact that the more recent birds are cleaner doesn’t mean we’re in the clear,” DuBay notes. “While the US releases far less black carbon into the atmosphere than we used to, we continue to pump less-conspicuous pollutants into our atmosphere — those pollutants just aren’t as visible as soot. Plus, many people around the world still experience soot-choked air in their cities.”
Analysis of atmospheric black carbon might assist scientists studying climate change. “We know black carbon is a powerful agent of climate change, and at the turn of the century, black carbon levels were worse than previously thought,” says DuBay. “I hope that these results will help climate and atmospheric scientists better understand the effects of black carbon on climate.”
And for both DuBay and Fuldner, being able to apply their research beyond their respective fields of evolutionary biology and photographic history was both unexpected and rewarding.
“As a historian, one of the questions I always ask is, ‘What is the point of this research to the way we live now?’ In this case the answer quickly became clear,” says Fuldner. “Filling in a blank space in the historical record of something as large as air pollution in American cities, and being able to share that with atmospheric scientists who study the effects of black carbon on the climate, is extraordinary.”
“This study shows a tipping point when we moved away from burning dirty coal, and today, we’re at a similar pivotal moment with fossil fuels,” says DuBay. “In the middle of the 20th century, we made an investment in infrastructure and regulated fuel sources–hopefully, we can take that lesson and make a similar transition now to more sustainable, renewable energy sources that are more efficient and less harmful to our environment.”
DuBay notes that in addition to the environmental implications of the project, their work also shows the importance of museum collections like those they used from The Field Museum in Chicago, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, and the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology in Ann Arbor. “I hope this study exposes collections as a valuable resource to address present day environmental concerns,” says DuBay. “This paper shows the ways that natural history collections can be used, underlining the value in collections and in continuing to build collections, to help us improve our understanding of human impacts on the natural world.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Article led me to wonder why no one appears to have used simile of “throwing out the baby (the good life giving photosynthesizing gas CO2) with the (dirty) bathwater (Pollution)”; many folks seem to confuse the two things IMHO and blame us non-politicized scientists for wanting to go back to the bad ol’ days of smogs.
They look FATTER too. Perhaps better fed, perhaps easier (warmer) living conditions?
Makes me wonder what killed these birds.
Same thing that kills every other creature…their hearts stopped beating.
🙂
“In the middle of the 20th century, we made an investment in infrastructure and regulated fuel sources–hopefully, we can take that lesson and make a similar transition now to more sustainable, renewable energy sources that are more efficient and less harmful to our environment.”
Unfortunately, wind turbines do more to birds than making certain that their white feathers stay clean.
They just keep the skins, not the flesh of the bird (skin, feathers, sometimes feet).
also, scientists probably shot and collected them!
(incidentally bird skins in museums are usually preserved by dusting them in arsenic: gloves required for handling!)
No, you don’t need to use gloves. Just don’t put your fingers in your mouth or your eyes, and be careful about washing your hands afterwards. I wouldn’t like to use gloves since you sometimes need to manipulate the skins a bit and they can be rather fragile, and often irreplaceable.
Reminds me of an old friend who worked in a Natural History Museum. He used to say that the old emeritus professors around the place were so impregnated with arsenic that they lasted almost for ever.
EPA had/ has plans to use mercury from coal fired plants as their next tactic to close coal plants and any industry the used coal. Since the 1970s FDA and EPA have over played the risk of mercury in the environment. The anti-mercury crowd preached that NO mercury was the only acceptable level. They preached and still do, even on the Cooking Channel, about the harm of eating marine fish higher than the FDA (actually court) established mercury standard. Yet we know from museum specimens that the levels of mercury in marine fish is no higher today than it was hundred plus years ago. What is truly bizarre is that people that eat more marine fish, including those above the FDA mercury level, as a part of their diet have less heart disease, mental illness and are generally healthier than those that do not include marine fish in their diet. A Japanese scientists from their Far Seas Laboratory bragged to me that he ate bluefin tuna sashimi every day of this life and only holidays a couple of times a day. I asked wasn’t he afraid of getting mercury poisoning. He laughed and said he would probably go broke long before he ate too much. He was in his late 70s, worked into his 80 and lived well into his 90s. For those that don’t know giant bluefin tuna have one of the highest mercury levels of any fish swimming. Bluefin tuna are one of the most valuable fish in the world because of the Japanese market.
Aphan October 12, 2017 at 12:34 pm said:
SO2 is sulfur DIOXIDE.
It is an oxidized form of sulfur.
— Correct apart from the American spelling!
S2- or S(-2) is sulfide. – Right, the ion which will normally be chemically linked to hydrogen or a metal ion, and is never found in nature.
Sulfate is SO-2,4
Sulfate(S) are salts of sulfuric acid – Agreed.
SULFATES are microscopic particles (aerosols) that result from fossil fuel and biomass burning.
NO. Again a sulphate (note English spelling) is an ion and is similarly normally linked to a metal – or hydrogen, as in Sulphuric Acid or Potassium Sulphate.
The usual gaseous product of burning metal sulphides in coal is Sulphur dioxide. This has to be catalyzed to create Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) – IIRC Monsanto at their plant in Cefn Mawr in Wales used platinum as a catalyst. Add water (H20) and you get H2SO4. This is troublesome! Again IIRC it was necessary to dissolve the raw H2SO4 product in “oleum” which is very highly concentrated H2SO4 with very little excess water. Strangely, it is barely corrosive in that state. However, when slightly diluted it becomes exceedingly corrosive, especially to organic compounds, and our chemistry master told us a story of an oleum tanker that leaked large quantities, which just sat there. Unfortunately a woman was walking by, and it covered her feet. At first no more than a slight tingle, then as the outer layer of skin was converted to carbon, (it is intensely hygroscopic) it started eating away and she lost her feet by the time she staggered out of the pool. Only remedy is VAST quantities of water to wash it away – a little water converts it into the normal sulphuric acid used in school laboratories. Demonstration – a couple of teaspoons of sugar in a test tube then pour on high strength sulphuric acid. Not much effect at first, then as the acid broke down the carbohydrate and removed the water, it suddenly turned into a fluffy mass of carbon, with much hissing and steam production.
I was about 12 3/4 when I was shown over the works – very impressive, especially the smell when the wind was in the wrong direction.
Dudley,
There absolutely are sulfates found in nature. They are called organo-sulfates. And it doesn’t matter how you spell it, with an “f” (American) or a “ph” (British English) they are referring to the same thing.
“Among the most important of these are sulfate aerosols, microscopic particles smaller than a millionth of a meter suspended in the air. Sulfate aerosols are produced primarily from sulphur dioxide (SO2) emitted during the combustion of fossil fuels. Along with ozone precursors, they are primary causes of acid rain and of lung irritation and ground-level haze or smog in polluted areas. (Yale Climate Connection)”
“The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil.”
NASA
“The composition of aerosol samples collected from various field campaigns showed clearly that organo-sulfates/nitrates may serve as excellent molecular tracers for anthropogenically affected aerosol sources, as it is the case of urban atmosphere.”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5034-0_17
Not all aerosols are sulfates, and not all sulfates are aerosols. But sulfate aerosols are microscopic particles (these particles can be liquids or solids) that are formed when SO2 emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels, combines with H20 in the atmosphere, and forms sulfuric acid, which is then suspended in the air.
The only catalyst needed to turn the sulfur dioxide into sulfur trioxide is OXYGEN. SO2 becomes SO3 by adding one more oxygen atom…platinum sounds like a very expensive catalyst when oxygen works just as well.
“When coal is burned the sulfur combines with oxygen and the sulfur oxides are released to the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) becomes sulfur trioxide (SO3) when reacting with oxygen in the air. This reacts with water molecules in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid, a strong mineral acid. This makes rain acidic.”
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/Enlist/Labs/AcidRain2/index.html
SO2+oxygen=SO3 and SO3 + H20= H2SO4
Thanks Aphan. I have no doubt that in the long run atmospheric sulphur dioxide can be converted to sulphuric acid with the addition of oxygen and water. However, my understanding is that the process is (very) slow. I understand that the normal atmospheric conversion is sulphur dioxide plus water creates sulphurous acid, which is then very slowly oxidized to sulphuric acid. In a chemical works, the need is to do it cheaply and quickly. So platinum is used as the catalyst. Remember that the catalyst improves the reaction, but is not used up (it takes part in the reaction but it is also regenerated, so the same quantity still remains at the end as at the start). So the use of platinum, while extensive to start with, has a very low cost – probably negligible – given the large quantities of sulphuric acid created.
Checked up on Wikipaedia, and I find that platinum is no longer used as it is subject to contamination by arsenic impurities in the sulphur feedstock. Instead Vanadium Oxide, or Vanadium Pentoxide, is used (V2O5). Also I found that the formula for ‘oleum’ is H2S2O7. This is the result of sulphuric acid plus sulphur trioxide. The oleum can then be added to water, not the other way around !!!!! The result of the reverse would be like the result of adding water to a can of boiling fat or oil – a massive fireball! Just a massive corrosive mist, rather than the oil + water fireball.
Not too bad a memory considering that my visit to the chemical works was 1947.
Regards
Dudley
Further to my last, here in Australia we are blessed (?) with substantial areas of acid sulphate soils. Wikipaedia says of them:
“Acid sulfate soils are naturally occurring soils, sediments or organic substrates (e.g. peat) that are formed under waterlogged conditions. These soils contain iron sulfide minerals (predominantly as the mineral pyrite) or their oxidation products. In an undisturbed state below the water table, acid sulfate soils are benign. However, if the soils are drained, excavated or exposed to air by a lowering of the water table, the sulfides react with oxygen to form sulfuric acid.[1]
Release of this sulfuric acid from the soil can in turn release iron, aluminium, and other heavy metals (particularly arsenic) within the soil. Once mobilized in this way, the acid and metals can create a variety of adverse impacts: killing vegetation, seeping into and acidifying groundwater[2][3] and surface water bodies,[4][5] killing fish and other aquatic organisms, and degrading concrete and steel structures to the point of failure.[1]”:
You can imagine the effect on railway sleepers – concrete or steel – of acid sulphate soils when you remember that in order to avoid the line being disturbed by floods normal procedure is to lay the track on a raised embankment. Soil dries out and railway concrete or steel sleepers become degraded “to the point of failure”. Not sure what the railway authorities do – perhaps they import soil from far away to build the embankments and keep the surrounding soil wet.
Regards
Dudley
“Add water (H20) and you get H2SO4. This is troublesome!”
It may be troublesome but also extremely useful. Sulfuric acid is in competition with crude oil and salt as the most important raw material for chemical industry, and is produced and transported in massive quantities.
By the way oleum was once used by the military to create artificial fog. It is as you say intensely hygroscopic and when sprayed into anything but extremely dry air will create a dense fog of sulfuric acid droplets.
Maybe just adaptation to the darker environment where darker birds have more chance to survive than white birds. The same as animals turning white for winter.
The two birds at the bottom of the picture are only six years apart; I can’t make out the other dates but the caption is misleading. The difference between these birds has probably less to do with decades and more to do with location and seasons. (Gullible me: I reposted the picture to facebook and my sister called its bluff.) –AGF