[The ghost of Ronald Reagan makes an appearance~cr]
Plants that emit lots of isoprenes may be causing unhealthful aerosol levels during heat waves
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – BERKELEY

California’s restrictions on vehicle emissions have been so effective that in at least one urban area, Los Angeles, the most concerning source of dangerous aerosol pollution may well be trees and other green plants, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, chemists.
Aerosols — particles of hydrocarbons referred to as PM2.5 because they are smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter and easily lodge in the lungs — are proven to cause cardiovascular and respiratory problems.
As a result of strict vehicle emissions laws, organic aerosol levels have been significantly reduced throughout the United States, but the drop has been particularly dramatic in Los Angeles, which started out at a higher level.
Based on pollution measurements over the past 20 years, the UC Berkeley scientists found that concentrations of PM2.5 in the Los Angeles basin in 2012 were half what they were in 1999. As a result, from 2016 to 2018, there were almost no PM2.5 violations in the area when temperatures were low, below 68 degrees Fahrenheit. But at warmer temperatures, aerosol concentrations rose — over the same time period, 70% to 80% of days over 100 F exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) threshold.
“The positive news is that, where we did understand the source and we took action, that action has been incredibly effective,” said Ronald Cohen, an atmospheric chemist and UC Berkeley professor of chemistry. “Twenty years ago, just about every day in LA was in violation of a health-based standard. And now it is only the hot days.”
As vehicle organic chemicals — compounds of carcinogens such as benzene and toluene –dropped, air quality experts focused on other potential sources of aerosols in those cities with unhealthful levels. Many researchers believe that personal care and household cleaning products — some seemingly as benign as the citrus scent limonene — may be the culprit. Given the temperature dependence of aerosol levels in Los Angeles, Cohen doubts that.
“There is a growing consensus that, as cars became unimportant, household chemicals are dominating the source of organics to the atmosphere and, therefore, dominating the source of aerosols,” he said. “I am saying that I don’t understand how aerosols from these chemicals could be temperature-dependent, and, therefore, I think it is likely something else. And trees are a good candidate.”
Plants are known to release more organic chemicals as the temperature rises and in many forested areas trees are the source of organic chemicals that combine with human-produced nitrogen oxides to form aerosol. President Ronald Reagan was partially correct when he infamously stated in 1981 that, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” At the time, scientists were learning about the role of forests surrounding Atlanta in causing that city’s air pollution.
Cohen and former Berkeley master’s degree student Clara Nussbaumer reviewed organic chemical emissions from various plants known to grow or be cultivated in the Los Angeles area and found that some, such as the city’s iconic Mexican fan palms, produce lots of volatile organic compounds. Oak trees are also high emitters of organic chemicals.
They estimated that, on average, 25% of the aerosols in the Los Angeles basin come from vegetation, which includes an estimated 18 million or more trees.
Plant derived aerosols are likely made of the chemical isoprene — the building block of rubber or plant chemicals such as terpenes, which consist of two or more isoprene building blocks combined to form a more complex molecule. Cohen says that PM2.5 aerosols can be thought of “as little tiny beads of candle wax,” with plant-derived aerosols composed of many molecules of isoprene and terpenes, which are found in pine tree resins.
“I am not suggesting that we get rid of plants, but I want people who are thinking about large-scale planting to pick the right trees,” he said. “They should pick low-emitting trees instead of high-emitting trees.”
The research was described this month in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
How does global warming affect pollutants?
Cohen, who has studied the temperature dependence of urban ozone levels for insight into the impact climate change will have on pollutants, decided two years ago to investigate the temperature dependence of ozone and aerosol pollution in five counties in the Los Angeles basin: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and Ventura. He and Nussbaumer looked at data from 22 measurement sites across the basin — eight in LA County, two in Orange County, five in Riverside County, four in San Bernardino County, and three in Ventura County — to study aerosols, and at four sites — three in LA, one in San Bernardino — to study ozone.
The researchers found that at the beginning of the 21st century, the relationship between temperature and aerosol pollution was quite varied: if the temperature went up, sometimes PM2.5 concentrations would increase a lot, sometimes a little. Today, the relationship is more linear: If the temperature goes up a degree, PM2.5 concentrations predictably increase by a set amount.
Cohen and Nussbaumer focused primarily on secondary organic aerosols (SOA), which form as particles when gaseous pollutants — primarily nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) — react with sunlight. The same conditions produce ozone.
Using a simple atmospheric model, they concluded that both regulated chemicals from vehicle exhaust and cooking — primary organic aerosols such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene — and isoprene from plants were precursors of the majority of the organic aerosols observed. Their model suggests that about a quarter of the SOA in the LA Basin are formed by isoprene or other very similar compounds, and that these represent most of the temperature-dependent increase. While there is evidence that some temperature-dependent VOCs have been controlled over time, such as those from evaporation of gasoline, isoprene is not one of them.
Cohen noted that as electric car use increases, the importance of organic aerosols from vegetation will become more dominant, requiring mitigation measures to keep levels within regulatory limits during heat waves.
“Cars are also contributing to ozone, and in the LA basin the ozone level is also high, at high temperatures and for the same reason: There are more organic molecules to drive the chemistry when it is hot ,” Cohen said. “We want some strategy for thinking about which plants might emit fewer hydrocarbons as it gets hot or what other emissions we could control that prevent the formation of aerosols.”
Cohen hopes to look at data from other urban areas, including the San Francisco Bay Area, to see if the temperature-dependent aerosols now dominate, and whether vegetation is the culprit.
The study was funded in part by a grant (NA18OAR4310117) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Cohen and Allen Goldstein, a UC Berkeley professor of environmental science, policy and management and of civil and environmental engineering, have also partnered with NOAA scientists and the state and local air quality agencies on an experiment to observe emissions in Los Angeles at different temperatures. Combining these different observing strategies in the LA Basin, Cohen hopes, “will lead to better ideas for reducing high ozone and aerosol events in the basin, ones that can then be used as a guide in other major cities suffering from poor air quality.”
###
Cohen also maintains a high-density network of 75 pollution monitoring stations around the Bay Area called BEACO2N. Cohen just started a collaboration with William Berelson at the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles Unified School District to deploy BEACO2N nodes in that area of Southern California.
They should plant more mechanical trees, then they won’t have this problem.
Ronald Reagan mentioned this once and people heaped scorn on him for months (years). James Brady ran through the press plane yelling “Killer Trees!”
It can’t possibly need to be said that trees do not produce dangerous aerosols……they do produce lots of aromatic aerosols — anyone ever walk in a pine forest on a hoit summer day, say up in Big Bear or Lake Arrowhead? The falsehood here is that they are “dangerous”.
From a 2017 study:
Monoterpene emissions from needles of hybrid larch F1 (Larix gmelinii var. japonica x Larix Kaempferi) grown under elevated carbon dioxide and ozone:
PR Mochizuki, Watanabe, Koike & Tani in AE; January 2017
“Total monoterpene emission rate decreased by 36% in response to elevated CO2 when compared
with control (P < 0.05).”
See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016308482
See also http://www.co2science.org/articles/V20/jan/a8.php
Monoterpenes constitute a major fraction of the biogenic volatile organic compounds or BVOCs given off by plants. From a climatic perspective their emissions are important because they contribute to the formation of photochemical oxidants (e.g., ozone) and are thought by some to represent a positive feedback to global warming (Boucher et al., 2013).
Introducing their contribution to the subject, Mochizuki et al. (2017) write that “to estimate the effect of monoterpenes emitted from larch species on the atmospheric chemistry of the northeastern Eurasian continent in the present and foreseeable future, it is necessary to investigate how emissions and composition of monoterpenes emitted from larch species vary against climate change.” Thus, the four Japanese researchers designed an experiment to investigate the effects of CO2 and ozone (O3), both alone and in combination, on monoterpene emissions from the hybrid larch F1 (Larix gmelinii var. japonica x Larix Kaempferi). More specifically, they grew 2-year-old seedlings in open-top chambers, subjecting them to control or elevated CO2 (380 ppm control, 600 ppm elevated) and/or O3 (<6 nmol mol-1 control, 60 nmol mol-1 elevated) concentrations during the daylight hours of two growing seasons, measuring their monoterpene emissions from 5-cm-long shoots.
So what did their experiment reveal?
Mochizuki et al. report that” total monoterpene emission rate decreased by 36% in response to elevated CO2 when compared with control (P < 0.05).” In the combined elevated CO2 x O3 treatment total monoterpene emissions also declined, and by nearly the same amount (32%), whereas it experienced a nonsignificant 23% increase in the elevated O3 treatment.
In light of the above findings, the negative effect of elevated CO2 on total monoterpene emissions observed in the saplings of the hybrid larch F1 should be welcomed by those concerned about future global warming for its potential to mitigate some of that warming.
I also remember reading at that time, that the Great Smoky Mountains and the Blue Ridge Mountains get their names from the aerosol haze of the monoterpenes.
Jon ==> Yes, the Great Smoky ountains are smokey due to VOCs: “VOCs are chemicals that have a high vapor pressure, which means that they can easily form vapors at room temperature. The millions of trees, bushes, and other plants in the Great Smoky Mountains all give off vapor, which comes together to create the fog that gives the mountains their signature smoky look.”
Author(s) seem to be from California.
I wonder if they know of the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park? The Blue Ridge Parkway is worth a bit of your time, and quite not like the Arroyo Seco Parkway in the LA area.
Plants, particularly trees, have long been claimed to be the cause of the hazy air in place like Tennessee’s Great Smokey Mountains and the Appalachian’s Blue Ridge Mountains. I don’t recall the exact translation but the LA Basin was called something like “Smokey Valley” by the natives at the time the Spanish first arrived.
Pesky trees..
The Blue Mountains, west of Sydney, appear blue due to emissions from eucalypts…
https://ecos.csiro.au/beating-eucalypt-blues-new-ways-model-air-quality/
Get rid of vegetation [regress to a pre-Devonian lifescape] and get rid of monoterpenes
The Smoky Mountains. They aren’t called that because they are on fire!
“Aerosols — particles of hydrocarbons referred to as PM2.5 because they are smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter and easily lodge in the lungs — are proven to cause cardiovascular and respiratory problems.”
I thought that the EPA had no data on the effect of PM2.5 on humans, as they couldn’t conduct any tests because of the ethical implications of subjecting people to such deadly particles. So, how has it been PROVEN that PM2.5 cause cardiovascular and pulmonary problems?
Well if isoprene from trees causes cancer, don’t worry, dogs can cure it! Just ask Joe Biden!
But even if some trees emit isoprene, let’s not cut them down–we still need the oxygen they put into the air!
Silly article. The only time trees pollute is when there’s a forest fire.
I sometimes wonder how much of the supposed “global warming” since the 1960s, is due to the various Clean Air Acts that were implemented around the world in the mid/late-20th century.
Toluene is not a carcinogen. My industrial hygienist liked to complain about it in the lab but had to acknowledge that toluene has never been shown to have carcinogenic properties unlike its close cousin benzene. It is classified as a suspected carcinogen although it has never been convicted even though hundreds of studies have been performed.
Benzene + vitamin C = highly carcinogenic. Check your sun screen, the skin cancer epidemic was never down to “holes in the ozone”. That one was a test to see how scientifically illiterate the masses are before they went full bore on the AGW.
Stopped reading when I got to “The researchers found that at the beginning of the 21st century, the relationship between temperature and aerosol pollution was quite varied: if the temperature went up, sometimes PM2.5 concentrations would increase a lot, sometimes a little. Today, the relationship is more linear: If the temperature goes up a degree, PM2.5 concentrations predictably increase by a set amount”
Anyone measure ozone produced by arcing in electric motors? E.g. from electric cars.
Tony Villar, the previous mayor of Los Angeles, had as his primary initiative against pollution the goal of planting 1 million new trees throughout the city. As with all govt programs this one was marginally successful, there were about 100+ thousand trees planted by the time he left office after two terms. One wonders what he may think of this should he ever read this study.
I never suffered from plant allergies until I left CA, where I had plenty of smog related breathing issues growing up.
Plants, trees, really do fill the air with irritating stuff.
Unintended consequences are always interesting to watch.
Now I hear CA might cover all their miles of canals with solar panels.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00693-8
Surely there are quite a few unintended consequences they haven’t thought about if they follow thru.
The heat on the water will evaporate lots more than the mere sunlinght had.
The rotting plant life will cost more to clean out of water for drinking.
And, even nowadays, solar energy does not store well leading to fluctuations in power use from other sources to balance it.