Chemical products that contain compounds refined
from petroleum, like household cleaners, pesticides, paints and perfumes, now
rival motor vehicle emissions as the top source of urban air pollution,
according to a surprising USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study
from the University of Colorado.
People use a lot more fuel than they do
petroleum-based compounds in chemical products -- about 15 times more by
weight, according to the new assessment. Even so, lotions, paints and other
products contribute about as much to air pollution as the transportation sector
does, said lead author Brian McDonald, a CIRES scientist working in NOAA's
Chemical Sciences Division.
In the case of one type of pollution -- tiny
particles that can damage people's lungs -- particle-forming emissions from
chemical products are about twice as high as those from the transportation
sector, his team found. "As transportation gets cleaner, those other
sources become more and more important," McDonald said. "The stuff we
use in our everyday lives can impact air pollution."
For the new assessment, the scientists focused on
volatile organic compounds or VOCs. VOCs can waft into the atmosphere and react
to produce either ozone or particulate matter -- both of which are regulated in
the United States and many other countries because of health impacts, including
lung damage.
Those of us living in cities and suburbs assume
that much of the pollution we breathe comes from car and truck emissions or
leaky gas pumps. That's for good reason: it was clearly true in past decades.
But regulators and car manufacturers made pollution-limiting changes to
engines, fuels and pollution control systems.
So McDonald and his colleagues reassessed air
pollution sources by sorting through recent chemical production statistics
compiled by industries and regulatory agencies, by making detailed atmospheric
chemistry measurements in Los Angeles air, and by evaluating indoor air quality
measurements made by others.
The scientists concluded that in the United States,
the amount of VOCs emitted by consumer and industrial products is actually two
or three times greater than estimated by current air pollution inventories,
which also overestimate vehicular sources. For example, the Environmental
Protection Agency estimates that about 75 percent of VOC emissions (by weight)
come from vehicular sources, and about 25 percent from chemical products.
The new study, with its detailed assessment of
up-to-date chemical use statistics and previously unavailable atmospheric data,
puts the split closer to 50-50. The
disproportionate air quality impact of chemical product emissions is partly
because of a fundamental difference between those products and fuels, said NOAA
atmospheric scientist Jessica Gilman, a co-author of the new paper.
"Gasoline is stored in closed, hopefully airtight, containers and the VOCs
in gasoline are burned for energy," she said.
"But volatile chemical products used in common
solvents and personal care products are literally designed to evaporate. You
wear perfume or use scented products so that you or your neighbor can enjoy the
aroma. You don't do this with gasoline," Gilman said.
The team was particularly interested in how those
VOCs end up contributing to particulate pollution. A comprehensive assessment
published in the British medical journal Lancet last year put air pollution in
a top-five list of global mortality threats, with "ambient particulate
matter pollution" as the largest air pollution risk. The new study finds
that as cars have gotten cleaner, the VOCs forming those pollution particles
are coming increasingly from consumer products.
"We've reached that transition point already
in Los Angeles," McDonald said. He and his colleagues found that they simply could
not reproduce the levels of particles or ozone measured in the atmosphere
unless they included emissions from volatile chemical products.
In the course of that work, they also determined
that people are exposed to very high concentrations of volatile compounds
indoors, which are more concentrated inside than out, said co-author Allen
Goldstein, from the University of California Berkeley.
"Indoor concentrations are often 10 times
higher indoors than outdoors, and that's consistent with a scenario in which
petroleum-based products used indoors provide a significant source to outdoor
air in urban environments."
The new assessment does find that the U.S.
regulatory focus on car emissions has been very effective, said co-author Joost
de Gouw, a CIRES chemist. "It's worked so well that to make further
progress on air quality, regulatory efforts would need to become more
diverse," de Gouw said.
"It's
not just vehicles any more."
Wondered what was wrong - I read that it was CO2 in homes too.
ReplyDeleteWhile on caravan holidays I used to notice a slight but definite sense of increased physical well-being. It was partly the effect of being on holiday, but our small caravan was very well ventilated compared to the house and I think that made a difference too.
ReplyDeleteIt was not easy to pin down, but the caravan felt more healthy. The same sensation doesn't occur in hotels.
"regulatory efforts would need to become more diverse" Here we go again . . .
ReplyDelete