Which air pollutant scars the lungs

Burning fuels, other human activity and natural sources emit gases that form particles in the air. These gases can oxidize and then condense to become a particle of a simple chemical compound.

Or they can react with other gases or particles in the atmosphere to form a particle of a different or of multiple chemical compounds. Particles formed by this latter process come from the reaction of elemental carbon soot , heavy metals, sulfur dioxide SO 2 , nitrogen oxides NO x , ammonia NH 3 and volatile organic compounds with water and other compounds in the atmosphere. With so many sources of particles, researchers want to know if some particles pose greater risk than others.

Researchers are exploring possible differences in health effects of the sizes of particles and particles from different sources, such as diesel particles from trucks and buses or sulfates from coal-fired power plants.

Recent studies have tried to answer this question. So far, the answers are complicated. Each particle may have many different components. The building blocks of each can include several biological and chemical components.

Bacteria, pollen and other biological ingredients can combine in the particle with chemical agents, such as heavy metals, elemental carbon, dust and secondary species like sulfates and nitrates. These combinations mean that particles can have complex effects on the body.

Some studies have found that different kinds of particles may have greater risk for different health outcomes. Other studies have identified the challenges of exploring all the kinds of particles and their health effects with the limited monitoring across the nation.

The best evidence shows that having less of all types of particles in the air leads to better health and longer lives. Air pollution affects lung cancer survival. Thorax, Air pollution as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Toxicological Sciences. Association between ambient air pollution and diabetes mellitus in Europe and North America: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. Effect of air pollution control on life expectancy in the United States: An analysis of U.

Counties for the period from to Chronic exposure to fine particles and mortality: An extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from to EPA, , Section 6. Low-concentration PM2. Estimating causal effects of local air pollution on daily deaths: Effect of low levels.

Moderate increases in ambient PM2. J Occp Environ Med. Dockery DW et al. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U. N Engl J Med. Pope CA et al. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.

Shi L, Zanobetti A, et al. Outdoor particulate matter exposure and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EPA, Section 9. Which is a natural indoor air pollutant? Which is not part of correcting sick-building syndrome?

Which is true of air pollution and human health? Years of research link air pollution to lung diseases. Air pollution is commonly listed as a cause of death. None of the health effects of air pollution are reversible. Healthy adults are most affected by air pollution. Which air pollutant scars the lungs? Ozone may have similar effects on human lungs. Ozone damage to people can occur without any noticeable signs.

Even when initial symptoms appear, they can disappear while ozone continues to cause harm. Otherwise healthy people can expect to experience acute but reversible effects if they exercise regularly outdoors when ozone levels are high. Another is that children breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults so they take in more ozone per pound of body weight than adults do. Children are also in a phase of rapid growth, and their metabolic rates are higher than adult rates tend to be.

Furthermore, children generally exercise outdoors more than adults do. According to a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine with fourth grade school children, each increase of 20 ppb in ozone is associated with a 63 percent school absence rate increase for illness.

For example, two people who do different jobs at the same farm might receive dramatically different levels of pesticide exposure through skin. And genetic variation makes it even harder to predict the specific effects of pesticide exposure on the skin and general health of individuals.

More from Nature Outlooks. The best way to assess the connection between skin absorption, levels of environmental exposure and genetic contributions, as well as their combined effects on health, is to conduct large-scale studies. But for now, the most prudent thing that people can do is to limit their exposure to pollutants. This includes taking common-sense precautions such as applying high-sun-protection-factor sunscreen to exposed skin and wearing protective clothing.

Another way to protect skin, particularly from free radicals, Krutmann says, is to use creams that are rich in antioxidant compounds. Krutmann says that many of these products — especially those containing vitamin C or vitamin E — work well to limit damage in cells. But the solution, Krutmann thinks, might be as simple as bolstering the protective barrier that the skin already provides.

This article is part of Nature Outlook: Skin , an editorially independent supplement produced with the financial support of third parties. About this content.

PubMed Article Google Scholar. Schnass, W. Hu, R. Weschler, C. Health Perspect. Atabila, A. Chemosphere , 83—89 Bernier, M. Download references. News 04 NOV News Explainer 02 NOV Research Highlight 08 NOV