EGU Blogs

Will Morgan

Will Morgan is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Manchester, UK. His research focusses on measurements of the chemical composition of aerosols and how this impacts air quality and climate. He is usually found at a computer in an office or on a research aircraft travelling a few hundred metres above the ground. Will also contributes to a podcast about atmospheric science called The Barometer. Tweets as @willmorgan.

Do you think that’s air you’re breathing?

Air pollution has been a major issue in our atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, with the smoke emanating from the many factories leading to smog settling over our cities and countryside.

The author Johanna Schonpenhauer remarked in 1830 that Manchester was:

Dark and smoky from the coal vapours, it resembles a huge forge or workshop.

As industrialisation and motor vehicles spread across the globe, so did the issue of air pollution. Recently, Sydney has been blanketed by dense smoke from bush fires, while a city in Northern China suffered with air pollution levels that were 40 times the safe limit recommended by the World Health Organisation. These are very visible examples of air pollution but often the problem is what we don’t see. Even relatively low levels of air pollution can be harmful to our health, especially if we are exposed for long periods.

Industrial Landscape 1955 by L.S. Lowry 1887-1976

Industrial Landscape 1955 by L.S. Lowry (1887-1976). The image depicts a typical industrial scene inspired by the smoke and factories of Great Manchester.
Source: Tate.

Breathing in the fumes from cars, factories and anything else that involves burning fuel can have serious short and long-term implications for our health. Air pollution has been linked to both causing and aggravating heart and lung diseases, which are the leading causes of death worldwide. The World Health Organisation recently declared that air pollution is a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths. During and after major air pollution events, the number of people suffering heart attacks and respiratory problems is known to increase.

The most dangerous type of air pollution is from tiny particles that are suspended in the air, known as aerosols or particulate matter. Outdoor air pollution is estimated to have contributed to around 3.2 million deaths in 2010, which represents 3.1% of all deaths globally. A recent report by the European Environment Agency concluded that around 90% of people living in European cities are exposed to levels of air pollution that are damaging to our health. Closer to (my) home, it is estimated that nearly 29,000 deaths each year in the UK occur due to particulate matter pollution. As well as outdoors, we are also exposed to air pollution indoors; at the global level, about 3.5 million deaths in 2010 were attributed to indoor air pollution. This represents 4.3% of all deaths and ranks third behind high blood pressure (7%) and tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (6.3%).

Click here to display content from YouTube.
Learn more in YouTube’s privacy policy.

As the above video from NASA demonstrates, air pollution by aerosols is a global issue.

Air pollution is also known to worsen existing health problems. For example, it exacerbates symptoms of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), which is an incredibly unpleasant respiratory condition where the airways in the lung become progressively degraded over time and there is no known cure. The predominant cause of COPD is tobacco smoking, as well as occupational exposures during activities such as coal mining. Exposure to air pollution further decreases the quality of life for COPD sufferers. Studies indicate that air pollution outdoors, is likely a minor cause of COPD but indoor air pollution using biomass fuels or coal for heating and cooking may be a major cause of COPD in the developing world.

 About 50% of deaths from COPD in developing countries are attributable to biomass smoke, of which about 75% are of women.

For non-smokers, indoor air pollution may be the biggest risk factor for COPD globally. Burning of biomass fuel can generate aerosol particulate pollution concentrations that are 2-20 times greater than safety standards specified by the World Health Organisation over a 24 hour period, with shorter term concentrations that are 200 times greater. Remember that this is likely to be fairly routine exposure over prolonged periods (years-to-decades). As someone who studies outdoor air pollution, I can tell you that that is a heck of a lot of aerosol!

Controlling emissions

While the establishment of Clean Air Acts in countries such as the UK and USA in response to heavy urban smog episodes led to major improvements in the levels of air pollution in the atmosphere, there are ongoing issues in these countries still. Air pollution may not be as visible in such countries but  it is not an obstacle that has been overcome.  The situation is likely to get worse in rapidly developing countries in Asia, South America and Africa. Problems with indoor air pollution are particularly pronounced in these countries also.

Air pollution, both indoors and outdoors, is a major global issue which presents a challenging conundrum for both scientists and policy makers.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

A condensed version of this post featured on the Manchester Science Festival blog.

Cooking up some aerosol

Ever wondered how many aerosol particles are emitted by microwaving popcorn? Or how polluted a football match is? I’m going to assume your answer is no but it turns out that science has the answer anyway!

Outdoor air pollution is a significant concern but air pollution indoors and in other enclosed spaces is of comparable importance. A US study estimated that around half of our exposure to aerosol particles occurs indoors. Breathing in aerosol particles is known to cause both long and short term implications for our health. Globally, it is estimated that outdoor air pollution accounts for 2.7-3.5 million deaths every year, while indoor air pollution from burning fuels for heating households ranges from 2.6-4.4 million.

Pass the popcorn

As well as household heating, another source of exposure to aerosol particles indoors is from cooking. Just this week, a paper was published on aerosol particle emissions from microwaving popcorn.  One of the main findings of the study was that:

The emitted PM concentrations varied significantly with flavour.

Where PM stands for Particulate Matter, which is another term used for aerosol particles. Butter flavoured popcorn (both Movie-theatre-style and standard) was the worst offender, while fat-free popcorn was the lowest (a win-win health benefit for the fat-free version). The study also found that replacing the standard (greasy) packaging with a brown paper bag, often led to dramatic decreases in the amount of aerosol particles produced. One way of reducing the amount of aerosol particles produced could be to change the packaging.

While the general premise of the study sounds somewhat whimsical, there is a serious side to the issue. One of the motivations for the study was that the chemicals released by microwave cooking may have led to former popcorn factory workers suffering from lung disease. The study did conclude that microwaving a single bag would not represent a serious health concern, especially when compared to other household sources. However, the risk would be elevated for people working in manufacturing the popcorn or involved with selling it e.g. in a cinema.

Who ate all the frankfurters?

It isn’t just cooking in the home that can lead to exposure to aerosol particles – sporting events are also an issue. Two recent studies investigated air pollution at a football match in Germany between FSV Mainz 05 and VFL Wolfsburg played at the Coface Arena, which is a 34,034 capacity stadium (the official attendance was 31,069). Measurements inside of the stadium showed very clear signals due to the football match, with aerosol concentrations increasing on average by 5 times the normal levels.

The study identified aerosols related to cooking within the stadium, with the build-up to the match seeing a steady increase up to kick-off. The largest peak in cooking aerosol occurred just before kick-off. Two more peaks were also seen at half-time and full-time.

As well as aerosols relating to cooking, the study also showed that cigarette smoke was the major contributor to aerosol concentrations within the stadium. Smoking is permitted within football stadiums in Germany, although there are ongoing discussions regarding banning it. The results of the study suggest that this would be a good idea in terms of local air quality within the stadium, especially considering the well-known risks from inhaling cigarette smoke. The level of cigarette smoke aerosol was much more consistent throughout the match compared with the cooking aerosols. The largest peak was actually at half-time – the German fans in this instance preferring a cigarette to food.

Again, the study sounds somewhat whimsical and I’ve been to conferences where the work is presented and people are quite keen to check out something a little different from the usual conference fare but again there is a more serious aspect to the research. The measured concentrations within the stadium often exceeded targets set by the European Union and World Health Organisation that are designed to limit health effects. This presents an issue for public safety and it is worth bearing in mind that the Coface Arena is relatively small compared to many stadiums.

An aerosol cookbook

The studies above highlight just a few instances where cooking can produce significant quantities of aerosol particles, which can harm our health given prolonged exposure. Exposure to aerosol particles from cooking is often increased by the enclosed space that it occurs in. When we are outside, the atmosphere is quite efficient at dispersing and reducing the amount of pollution in our vicinity – this isn’t so easy in an enclosed kitchen (or football stadium).

Aerosols from cooking sources are not always confined to enclosed spaces, as they have been detected in sizeable amounts in outdoor experiments in several locations such as London, Barcelona and Beijing. Compared to other sources of aerosols such as traffic emissions, cooking aerosols may seem like small-fry, but we are all exposed to these types of particles on a regular basis. Nourishing our understanding of these aerosol particles will help to limit our exposure to them.

An aerosol is born: solving the nucleation recipe

One of the most fundamental aspects of aerosols that we are continually striving to understand is how they are actually born. One pathway that aerosol particles can take is a process known as “nucleation“. This nucleation process is where new particles are formed by gaseous molecules getting together and deciding that they’ve had enough of the gas-phase and would prefer to be tiny aerosol particles instead. Aerosol particles are pretty small at the best of times, but these are really tiny; the initial particles are around 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair!

Many of the important steps in the birth of these particles occur when they are less than 2-nanometres in diameter. If the conditions are suitable, these newly formed particles can then grow to larger sizes (50-100 nanometres). It is at this point that these particles get interesting from a climate point of view as they can serve as the seeds for clouds. Newly formed particles from nucleation represent a large fraction of the building blocks of clouds (known as cloud condensation nuclei) – potentially around half of the cloud condensation nuclei in our atmosphere come from nucleation.

Nucleation in our atmosphere has been observed regularly across the globe, ranging from remote forests to heavily-populated cities.  However, our understanding of the nucleation recipe has been limited, as it proved extremely difficult to actually measure the first steps of nucleation. This is where a new study in Nature steps in.

The cleanest box in the world

The study reports on the latest series of experiments using the ‘cleanest box in the world‘ at CERN for a project known as CLOUD. The experiments take place in a 26 m3 stainless steel box (or chamber if you prefer the fancy terminology), that has very precise controls for temperature and delivery of whatever cocktail of gases the scientists wish to introduce. The chamber is able to simulate cosmic rays using the CERN Proton Synchrotron, a 628 metre long particle accelerator.

The idea with chambers such as this is to recreate conditions similar to the real atmosphere in the laboratory, where things can be controlled more precisely and annoyances like the weather don’t get in the way. These sorts of experiments are ideal for improving our understanding of particular mechanisms, such as how are aerosol particles born?

View inside the CLOUD chamber. Image courtesy of CERN.

For many years, it was known that the nucleation recipe required the presence of sulphuric acid in order to occur. However, experiments in the laboratory did not agree with our observations in the real atmosphere, while there were also theoretical limitations on nucleation involving only sulphuric acid. CLOUD has been able to show how important other molecules are.

The first major result from the project was published in Nature in 2011 and demonstrated that ammonia was a crucial ingredient for nucleation.  The most recent Nature paper presented results showing that a cousin of ammonia, known as amines, promotes even more nucleation. Both ammonia and amines are produced predominantly by agricultural activities, such as fertiliser application and animal husbandry. It turns out that cows are one of the keys to nucleation!

A crucial finding of the new study is that only a relatively small addition of amines to the nucleation recipe is required to close the gap between laboratory and atmospheric measurements. Adding a dash of amines to the mix increases the rate of nucleation by more than a 1,000 compared to the previous results for the ammonia system. The level of amines required is also comparable to typical values measured in the atmosphere, although relatively few measurements exist at present. Nonetheless, it suggests that amines play an important role in nucleation in our atmosphere.

Intergalactic planetary

Adding amines to the mix gets the laboratory results into the same ballpark as the atmospheric observations but the results suggest that some ingredients are still missing…

CERN is able to simulate the addition of ions from Galactic Cosmic Rays to the mixture, with ions known to enhance nucleation. The work done at CLOUD so far suggests that these ions play a limited role in the lower part of the atmosphere. The studies have stressed though that the impact of ions on other systems needs to be studied and that some remote areas in the mid-troposphere may be more susceptible to ion-induced nucleation.

The major remaining candidate is organic compounds, which are known to play a role in nucleation based on atmospheric observations. We know that organic compounds are a major player for aerosols across the globe and they are often the dominant ingredient. Much of the more recent work from CLOUD that has been presented at scientific conferences has focused on these organic compounds. The indications are that they play a crucial role in both the initial particle formation and their growth.

The growth of these particles is crucial for their potential climate impact – if they don’t grow, they won’t become the seeds for clouds. CLOUD has been doing a lot of work on these “growth” experiments, with plans to connect the whole process to actual clouds (rather than tortured acronyms).

The CLOUD experiments have thus far hugely improved our understanding of the nucleation recipe and there will likely be further important discoveries. The climate implications of these new mechanisms will come under great scrutiny  in the future. In terms of the experiments themselves, probably the most important aspect is that the chamber is incredibly clean – given CERN’s association with the so-called “God-particle“, it seems that cleanliness really is next to Godliness.

The role of aerosol uncertainty in climate change

For those who follow [pun intended] the world of climate science on Twitter, you’ll very likely have noticed a string of tweets from a meeting at the Royal Society on the “Next steps in climate science“. The programme (PDF here) has included a wide range of topics relating to climate science and has included a number of scientists who heavily contributed to the recent IPCC Working Group One assessment report.

I put together a Storify of the discussion relating to a talk by Dr Oliver Boucher from the Met Office Hadley Centre on the role of aerosols in the session on “How large are uncertainties in forcings and feedbacks and how can they be reduced?” – the discussion can be accessed below or by clicking here.

Image of the global aerosol distribution produced by NASA. The image was produced using high-resolution modelling by William Putman from NASA/Goddard. The colours show the swirls of aerosol particles formed from the numerous sources across the globe. The colours show aerosol particles as dust (gold/brown), sea-spray (blue), biomass burning/wildfires (green) and industrial/urban (white).

Image of the global aerosol distribution produced by NASA. The image was produced using high-resolution modelling by William Putman from NASA/Goddard. The colours show the swirls of aerosol particles formed from the numerous sources across the globe. The colours show aerosol particles as dust (gold/brown), sea-spray (blue), biomass burning/wildfires (green) and industrial/urban (white). Trying to untangle all of this is extremely challenging!

The event itself has been an excellent distraction example of scientists communicating with a wide audience and is yet another example of social media adding something extra to scientific meetings. I wasn’t able to attend but I found the discussions on Twitter interesting, engaging and thought provoking. Many thanks to the speakers, tweeters and the Royal Society.

http://storify.com/willtmorgan/how-large-are-uncertainties-in-forcings-and-feedba?