What filters do I need for the X-treme™ masks?Essentially the filters in the X-treme™ function in the same way as the City™ and Sportsta™ filters do. The X-treme™ mask for sports utilises the particulate filtration ability of the Sportsta™ and the X-treme™ mask for urban use, uses activated carbon as its filtration medium.
For more Frequently Asked Questions, go to Respro® Mask FAQ
BRITISH air is much clearer than it once was: in 1952 one “pea souper” smog in London (see photo) caused the deaths of around 4,000 people in a week. But it is not as clean as it could be. On April 29th the Supreme Court ordered the next government to come up with a plan by the end of the year to reduce the amount of nitrogen dioxide (NO{-2}), a noxious gas produced by diesel engines, in the atmosphere. The judgment could have big implications for several large infrastructure projects. It also suggests how, after years of campaigning by greener types, dirty air is finally becoming a political issue.
Britain has long been exceeding limits set by the European Union on air pollution. In 2014 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reported that, in the previous year, annual mean limits for NO{-2} had been breached in 38 out of 43 sites. Certain roads in London, such as Oxford Street, a busy shopping thoroughfare, have seen some of the highest recorded measures of NO{-2} in Europe.
The health effects of NO{-2} have not yet been calculated for Britain, but are thought to be as potentially damaging as fine man-made particulate matter, says Gary Fuller of King’s College London. A report from a government advisory group in 2010 estimated that, if all fine particulate matter (which is mostly caused by car fumes and the wear and tear of tyres on the road) were removed from the atmosphere, it would increase the average life expectancy of those born in 2008 by six months—and for those born in London by nine months.
Despite the mounting evidence of the harmful effects of dirty air, there has been little political desire to get it sorted. Responsibility for cleaning up air pollution falls over several different government departments, and may require unpopular decisions to be made about raising taxes or increasing environmental burdens on car companies. And around a third of the dirty air in Britain is swept across from Europe. Politicians could often skirt the issue by pointing out that it was a Europe-wide problem. But the ruling by the Supreme Court “takes political will out of the equation,” says Alan Andrews of ClientEarth, the group of environmental lawyers who brought the case to the Supreme Court. The government will have to clear up the air within the next decade or so, regardless of costs.
However, in the next few months Sir Howard Davies, the leader of an independent Airports Commission, is expected to issue a recommendation on where to expand airport capacity in the south-east. The court ruling adds a “potential black mark” to the case for expanding either Heathrow or Gatwick, Sir Howard’s two potential options, says Matthew Farrow, the executive director of the Environmental Industries Commission, an industry group. Levels of NO{-2} are already above recommended levels around Heathrow, which is next to a busy motorway, and are expected to rise at Gatwick even without another runway. It could also delay plans for a new bridge in East London.
This means the next government will have to make some swift decisions about clearing up Britain’s dirty air, by introducing several “low-emission zones” to reduce the number of diesel cars and the like. Measures to cut air pollution have been taken before. In 1956, after the smog in London, the government pushed through a Clean Air Act, banning coal fires in people’s homes. That decision was prompted by a crisis. The reasons for pushing through this reform may appear to be less dramatic, but they are no less important.
Take a deep breath. Hold it. Now, release. Breathing is an amazing bodily function, one that is fundamental to life and an act that we do both automatically and conscientiously. Though we are acutely aware of changes in our breathing—too fast, too shallow, too loud—most people give little thought to what is in the air we breathe.
With an estimated 3.4 million deaths annually attributed to outdoor air pollution, this lack of awareness is concerning. To better understand the linkages between air quality and human heath, a group of the world’s leading scientists convened by the Environmental Performance Index at Yale University came together to review the latest science on air pollution and explore how the next generation of air quality indicators can be made more useful for policy purposes.
Linking scientific data to policies to improve air quality is hard to do. One reason is that it is difficult to attribute ambient air pollution to specific sources of pollution. For example, forecasting for ozone requires complex scientific modeling, making it difficult to attribute to regional or global sources. Measuring how pollutants change over space and time is also tricky, especially when it comes to understanding how air pollution moves across cities and within neighborhoods. Depending upon where you live, air quality data may not be available in real time (if they’re available at all, see this interactive map we put together showing availability of reported air quality data to the World Health Organization). More often than not, especially in developing countries, data are reported in yearly smoothed-out averages and can obscure daily spikes from human activity (rush hour, for example) that most impact health.
To better understand these linkages, the scientists focused on some of the most deadly air pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter (PM), which cause respiratory illness, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and mercury, which affect human health through food chains and degrade ecosystems. These pollutants are caused by urbanization and industrialization, and are, for the most part, naked to the human eye. Most of these pollutants are not regularly monitored in most of the world, particularly in areas that are urbanizing and developing the fastest. Not enough attention is given to advocating for stricter monitoring and clean-up of these pollutants.
Although there is a plethora of ongoing research on air pollution, these data are not collected and communicated in a meaningful way for policy-makers to take much needed action. For example, air quality indices that are used to communicate health exposures to PM or ozone do not tell a city mayor what sources are largely responsible for the pollution. Should the mayor tackle emissions arising from motor vehicles, or should environmental ministries mandate better scrubbers on power plants? The available indicators generated from ground-based monitoring stations do not link to the sources of pollution, making action challenging.
Another common problem we found across each indicator is the need for more and better data. However, many countries lack the capacity or financial resources to install and maintain costly ground-based monitoring stations or networks. Here’s where the data revolution, low-cost environmental sensors, and improved mobile technology can allow for crowd-sourced data to help fill in some of the data gaps, especially in developing countries that are in “information-poor.”
At the same time, we must make sure that people are aware of air pollution issues that affect their everyday lives, which is why we developed the interactive data visualization above to raise awareness about air pollution and the need for new indicators to measure air quality. The aim of these interactive data visualizations, produced by a team of student designers and programmers, is to help educate people about the air we breathe by answering key questions: Where do air pollutants come from? What are the risks and impacts? How do we measure these factors? And, what do we do to address data gaps?
Ultimately, the goal is to help policy-makers make better decisions about air quality as it relates to important drivers such as agriculture, land use change, urban form, and economic growth. Check out the interactive to learn more about what is in the air, how it affects your health, and what can be done to achieve the ‘next generation’ indicators for policy action.
To view the interactive on the website of Yale’s Environmental Performance Index click here.
via What’s in Your Air? [Interactive] | Guest Blog, Scientific American Blog Network.
The Cinqro™ package incorporates a complete mask fitted with a Hepa-Type particle filter for filtering submicron particles like diesel smoke. A spare DACC chemical/particle filter is also supplied as part of the package allowing filter interchangeability.
For improved air flow and comfortability, two Powa Elite™ valves are included with the Cinqro™ mask. They improve air flow characteristics when breathing out at elevated breathing patterns. This equates to less back pressure, less dampness in the filter, improved filtration, lower inhalation resistance all of which result in improved comfort and performance.
A graphics rebuild for the look of the mask fits it squarely in the sports arena rather than the ‘scare the hell out of everyone’ arena.
Cinqro™ = mask + 2 filters + Powa Elite™ valves + graphics = value for money
For more FAQ visit Respro® masks FAQ
A court dispute between Fraser Surrey Docks and Metro Vancouver over the regional district’s power to regulate air quality could have far-reaching implications beyond a proposed coal export terminal in Surrey.
Fraser Surrey Docks already has port authority approval to build the coal-handling facility, which would bring U.S. coal by train through White Rock and South Surrey and load it onto ocean-going ships.
Construction hasn’t yet begun and Fraser Surrey Docks hasn’t yet applied to Metro for a required air quality permit.
Instead, it is challenging Metro’s jurisdiction, delegated by the provincial government through the Environmental Management Act, to regulate industrial air emissions, arguing that power has no force on federal port lands.
The case, which goes to trial in provincial court next month, will see Fraser Surrey Docks contest a $1,000 fine levied against it by Metro in 2013 for the discharge of soybean dust from its grain handling operations.
“The ramifications of a decision in favour of Fraser Surrey Docks would be profound,” Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver said.
Any new industry – not just the coal terminal – could open on federal lands without obeying Metro regulations to control air pollution, he said.
And Weaver suggested such a ruling might thwart the province’s power to control emissions on any federal lands in B.C., not just port land within Metro.
He said there are many proposed industrial port developments – from LNG terminals to oil refineries – that could end up on federal port lands and pollute airsheds as far north as Kitimat and Prince Rupert.
Weaver called on the province to take a stand.
“Why is this going to the court and why isn’t the province stepping up and playing a more outspoken role about what they believe the role of Metro Vancouver and their role is?”
Environment Minister Mary Polak was not available for an interview.
An emailed statement from her office said the province has an interest in the case but will wait for the court’s decision before commenting further.
“Sources of air pollution throughout B.C., including on federal lands, must be managed to appropriate levels,” it said.
The coal terminal proposal is the target of separate court challenges filed by project opponents.
Fraser Surrey Docks now intends to directly load the coal onto ships, rather than first to barges that would have had to be unloaded to ships at Texada Island.
via Metro air pollution authority contested in court – Surrey Leader.
A POLLUTION expert has warned lorry deliveries in Colchester could be affected following a ruling by the UK’s highest court to act over air pollution limits.
Supreme Court justices said the Government must prepare and consult on new air quality plans to submit to the European Commission.
ClientEarth has said under existing plans, some areas such as London, Birmingham and Leeds would not meet pollution limit targets until 2030, 20 years after the original deadline of 2010.
Essex University environmental science professor Ian Colbeck said: “I suspect Defra will have to come up with additional plans for reducing traffic.
“We may well see restrictions on traffic within Colchester to try to reduce levels.
“There could be impacts on deliveries. They might look at changing delivery times or limiting them to certain times of the day to stop traffic building up.
“Colchester is moving slowly.
“It has got the park and ride now which should help to some extent in reducing the number of cars, although it is some buses which are the major cause of nitrogen dioxide pollution.
“Osborne Street is one the worst places in the area as buses sit outside the bus station. Of all the places I would say Osborne Street is going to need changes.”
Colchester Council has been monitoring air quality for nitrogen dioxide for several years and has declared the town centre, East Street, the Harwich Road and St Andrew’s Avenue junction and Lucy Lane North, Stanway, as area quality management areas.
Air quality monitoring in Colchester revealed in 2013, 11 streets exceeded the recommended pollution limit levels of 40mcgs per cubic metre over a year.
The worst street was Mersea Road which had a reading of 65.9.
After the judges made their mandatory order, ClientEarth described the ruling as “historic”, saying it was “the culmination of a five-year legal battle fought by ClientEarth for the right of British people to breathe clean air”.
It says air pollution causes 29,000 early deaths a year in the UK, more than obesity and alcohol combined.
Among the measures the Government must consider are low emission zones and congestion charging.
Provisional results for air pollution readings for 2015 in Colchester can be found at essexair.org.uk
via Air pollution targets to lead to a traffic rethink (From Gazette).
Alarm bells have started ringing over the increasing levels of air pollution in Mysuru, which was considered one of the least polluted cities a few years ago.
The particulate matter (PM) pollution has neared alarming proportions here following increase in its levels over the last five years. One of the prime reasons for this is unrestrained emission from vehicles.
The particulate matter pollution had once crossed the permissible limits (60 micrograms per meter cube of air) in the semi-industrial locality in 2013-14. And, the levels have been climbing in residential/commercial areas of the city.
Particulate matter (consists of airborne particles in solid and liquid forms) poses a serious health hazard and triggers respiratory diseases.
Also, sulphur dioxide (SO2) and Oxides of Nitrogen (Nox) pollution have been getting higher in last five years here, but not to such disquieting levels. The air quality is being monitored at two stations — at the KSPCB office in Hebbal (industrial) and another near the KSRTC city bus-stand at K.R. Circle (commercial/ residential).
The agricultural sector is the main source of ammonia (NH3) and methane (CH4) in the EU. Yet emissions reductions over the past thirty years for either of these pollutants have not been as impressive as reductions of pollutants from other sectors.
The EU is currently looking at tightening the pollution limits for each EU Member State between now and 2030 through a revision of the National Emissions Ceilings (NEC) Directive. It is important that the ceilings fixed for both ammonia and methane are ambitious and lead to real efforts from farmers to reduce the pollution they emit. If they are not, other sectors already contributing to emissions cuts will be under pressure to deliver even greater emissions reductions and EU citizens will be condemned to breathe dirty air well beyond 2030.
The infographic explains what the sources for agricultural emissions are, how they impact on our health and why it is important to regulate them.
You can view the infographic by clicking on the image below or click here to download our position paper ‘Clean Air from our Farms’.
via Infographic: How agricultural emissions affect our health – EEB.
Pollution Masks - The 'Original' and still the best - Established 1993 - Made in the UK 
Respro® Masks are reusable
