EPA Proposes Stricter Ozone Air Pollution Standard

Posted on November 27, 2014 by Respro® UK Ltd

The Obama administration is preparing for the release of a series of energy regulations over the coming weeks in advance of a Republican-controlled Congress next year that will prompt pushback from industries and lawmakers, testing President Barack Obama’s commitment to his environmental agenda.

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed lower limits for ground-level ozone, or smog, in the atmosphere, setting off a nearly yearlong regulatory process for setting a new standard. Public-health and environmental groups say the limits are essential in preventing a range of respiratory diseases. Businesses say it could be the costliest regulation in U.S. history.

By year’s end, the administration plans to release at least three other regulations, including another from EPA regulating coal ash, a byproduct of coal-fired electricity, and two from the Interior Department setting standards for Arctic oil and natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing on federal lands.

The EPA also is expected to decide sometime in December to what extent it will regulate emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is inadvertently emitted during the production and transmission of natural gas. In January, the agency intends to issue a final rule controlling carbon emissions from new power plants, a precursor to the agency’s parallel standard cutting carbon from power plants already in operation, which EPA plans to complete next summer.

Driven by various factors, including court-enforced deadlines and presidential directives, the initiatives will touch on a broad swath of the economy, especially the utility, oil and natural gas industries. It also advances an ambitious environmental and climate-change agenda Mr. Obama hopes to make a legacy of his time in the White House.

Republicans on Capitol Hill, who will control both chambers of Congress next year, have vowed to pass legislation to slow down or stop altogether several EPA rules, including the ozone standard announced this week, which could force Mr. Obama’s consider vetoing bills handcuffing his top priorities.

“The Obama Administration hasn’t even fully implemented—or seen the consequences of—existing rules, yet here we see another effort to slow job growth and send jobs overseas,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), said in a written statement after the ozone announcement. “The new Congress will review the rule and take appropriate action.”

The EPA’s ozone proposal would limit ozone between 65 and 70 parts per billion in the air and sought comment on a standard as strict as 60 parts per billion, in line with what an independent scientific advisory panel recommended earlier this year. The current level, established in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration, is set at 75 parts per billion, though some regions of the country still aren’t complying with the 1997 level set at 84 parts per billion. The agency said it will take comment on keeping the standard at the current level, something industry groups have encouraged.

“When it comes to reducing this pollution, we’ve done it before and we’re on track to do it again,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a call with reporters.

The agency is relying on the Clean Air Act, a 44-year-old law Congress first passed in 1970, for the ozone rule and several other air-pollution standards, including the proposed climate rules and a mercury regulation the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would review over its costs.

“This administration is relying very heavily on what Congress has already told us is our job,” Ms. McCarthy said.

The EPA estimates the cost to businesses and localities to meet the ozone standard would range between $3 billion and $15 billion in 2025, a decade from now, and the monetary value of the public health benefits range between $6.4 billion and $19 billion in 2025.

These estimates are significantly less than what the EPA proposed in 2011, when it said costs could reach $90 billion and public-health benefits could reach $100 billion. Ms. McCarthy said an improvement in air quality brought by regulations the agency has pursued in recent years has brought down the estimated costs of this latest ozone proposal. The part of the Clean Air Act the EPA uses to issue ozone limits says the agency only can consider science, not cost, an approach supported unanimously by the Supreme Court in 2001.

“Because of recent federal pollution-control rules reducing ozone-causing pollutants—which I have consistently supported—our air is significantly cleaner and healthier,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said. “It may be wiser to let these existing rules continue to make our air cleaner and then let’s see whether stricter ozone standards for communities, like the one proposed today, are really needed.”

The ozone standard, which the Clean Air Act mandates to be reviewed every five years, isn’t a direct regulation on business. States, however, must comply, which in turn would compel utilities, factories, refineries and other businesses and municipalities that emit smog-forming pollution, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, to install new pollution equipment.

The agency is expected to issue a final standard by October of next year, a timeline the EPA said on its website Wednesday it intends to meet. However, the administration hasn’t completed writing the plan for states to comply with the standard set early by the Bush administration.

via EPA Proposes Stricter Ozone Air Pollution Standard – WSJ.

Posted in Air Quality, USA & Canada | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Respro® Masks FAQ: Can I Wash The Filter?

Posted on November 26, 2014 by Respro® UK Ltd

FILTER IN MASKThe filter material may be washed, but ordinarily we recommend ‘hand washing’. Machine washing can be somewhat vigorous which can abraid the material by being washed with other garments. Some washing powders also contain fragrance additives which the filter will certainly pick up.

The best procedure now would be to follow our washing guide and hopefully your filter will still be useable.

WASHING INSTRUCTIONS:

To ensure good hygiene/care measures we suggest that you place the filter and valves in a pan of freshly boiled water (remove pan from heat source before putting filter in) and let it cool down. Remove the filter unit from the water and allow to stand dry.
This procedure will remove facial oils that may build up over a period of continuous use and will also remove some of the particulates and organic vapour that will be present within the Charcoal structure of the filter or tissue salt build in the valves.

If the mask cover requires washing this should be done by carefully removing the filter assembly and then washing the outer casing in warm soapy water and then left to dry naturally (not forced by means of heaters and driers).

For more Frequently Asked Questions go to respro.com

Posted in Air Quality | Tagged | 37 Comments

Air pollution costs Britain £10bn a year, report shows

Posted on November 26, 2014 by Respro® UK Ltd

Britain is third highest contributor to air pollution that costs Europe up to £149bn a year, says EU agency report

Britain has 10 of Europe’s top 50 “super-polluting” power stations and factories, helping to cost it more in health and environmental impacts than any other countries, except for Germany and Poland.

New air pollution figures from the European environment agency EEA suggest that a handful of power stations and industrial plants together cost the National Health Service and the wider UK economy over £10bn a year.

Of over 14,000 major industrial plants identified in Europe’s 27 countries, Drax power station in Selby and the Longannet plant at Kincardine in Scotland were ranked respectively 5th and 10th between 2008-2012.

Drax’s air pollution is calculated to have cost the economy £2.7-£6.34bn and Longannet £1.8-4.56bn. The Corus steel works in Redcar ranked 27th in Europe with Alcan Aluminium in Co Durham 34th.

The 10 biggest British plants together were calculated to have at cost at least £12.6bn in air pollution damages between 2008-2012.

Eight of the 30 biggest sources of air pollution were in Germany, six in Poland, four in Romania and three each in Bulgaria and the Britain. Half of all the health and environmental costs were said to be caused by just 1% of the industrial plants, said the report.

Cost

The authors calculated the economic damage done not just by major air pollutants emitted from coal and gas power stations but also those from burning diesel and petrol in vehicles. It included the estimated cost to the health service of the premature deaths and respiratory problems caused by traffic and industry, as well as the damage done to buildings, and the money lost from crop damage and from soil and water pollution.

CO2, a major gas responsible for climate change, was costed according to its carbon price. For the air pollutants, the majority of costs were said to be due to the health impacts of people breathing in minute particles of unburned carbon.

According to the authors, “air pollution cost [European] society at least €59 billion, (£46bn) and possibly as much as €189 billion (£149bn) in 2012. The upper estimate is roughly the same as the GDP of Finland or half the GDP of Poland. In Britain, the cost is estimated to be between £31-99bn in the five years from 2008.”

“While we all benefit from industry and power generation, this analysis shows that the technologies used by these plants impose hidden costs on our health and the environment. Industry is also only part of the picture – it is important to recognise that other sectors, primarily transport and agriculture, also contribute to poor air quality,” said Hans Bruyninckx, EEA director.

The report recorded a small decrease in the economic damage done over the five years monitored in the report. This, said the authors, reflected lower emissions from European industry, attributed to both tighter air pollution laws, greater efficiency in factories and machines and the Europe-wide economic recession.

But the EEA warned that the total cost of damage to health and the environment from pollution by all sectors of the economy, including from ‘diffuse’ sources such as road transport and households, could be significantly higher.

In 2010, the European commission estimated that the external costs associated with only the main air pollutants ranged from £260- 740bn.

An EEA spokesman added that because air pollution crossed borders, all figures were calculated from sources of pollution. The wide range of damages, he said, reflected different countries’ ways of putting a value on the health impacts of air pollution as well as the different methods used to estimate CO2 related damage.

via Air pollution costs Britain £10bn a year, report shows | Environment | The Guardian.

Posted in Air Quality, Europe, UK | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

High Alert in the Arve Valley for Air Pollution

Posted on November 25, 2014 by Respro® UK Ltd

Air quality in the Chamonix Valley over the last few days peaked yesterday with particles of pollutants in the air exceeding the 50 / 80μg / m³ threshold.

Monitoring air quality levels will continue as if the current situation worsens, there could be an ban on heavy vehicles throughout the Arve Valley and restrictions put into place for inhabitants of the region, as we saw back in July. Hopefully today’s weather conditions, with mid and high level clouds passing through, will mean that air quality improves at least in the short term.

via High Alert in the Arve Valley for Air Pollution | Chamonet.com.

Posted in Air Quality, Europe, France | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Europe Suffering from Harmful Air Pollution

Posted on November 24, 2014 by Respro® UK Ltd

Air pollution in Europe comes with a high price tag, according to a new report from the European Environment Agency (EEA). While policies have improved air quality overall, air pollution is still the main environmental health hazard, resulting in high costs for health care systems, unhealthy workers and an estimated 400 000 premature deaths in Europe in 2011.

The annual air quality report collates data from official monitoring stations across Europe. It shows that almost all city dwellers are exposed to pollutants at levels deemed unsafe by the World Health Organization (WHO). For some pollutants, more than 95 percent of the urban population is exposed to unsafe levels.

Alongside the report, the EEA is publishing data showing pollution levels in almost 400 cities across Europe. While many large cities have relatively low levels of pollution, others have pollution levels above EU limits for a significant part of the year.

“Air pollution is still high in Europe,” EEA executive director Hans Bruyninckx said. “It leads to high costs: for our natural systems, our economy, the productivity of Europe’s workforce, and most seriously, the general health of Europeans.”

The most serious air pollutant is fine particulate matter, similar to dust or soot but with very small particles capable of penetrating deep into lungs. Long-term exposure to particulate matter was responsible for the vast majority of air pollution-caused premature deaths in Europe in 2011, the study shows, while high levels of ground level ozone over short episodes also caused a significant number of deaths.

Most air pollutants have declined slightly over the last decade, including particulate matter and ozone. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), another pollutant, has not fallen as fast as expected. This is partly because vehicles are an important source of NO2, and vehicle emission standards have not always led to the anticipated reductions.

The pollutant which increased the most over the last decade was benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). Emissions of this pollutant increased by more than a fifth between 2003 and 2012 as urban use of woodstoves and biomass heating increased. In 2012 almost nine out of ten city dwellers were exposed to BaP above WHO reference levels.

An increasing body of scientific research shows that air pollutants may be more harmful than previously thought. Air pollution’s effect on respiratory illnesses and heart disease is well known, but new studies have shown that it can also affect health in other ways, from foetal development to illnesses late in life.

While most harm comes from long-term exposure, short-term episodes can also be very dangerous. For example, Paris experienced an extended episode of high air pollution earlier this year, when still weather allowed a build-up of particulate matter over several days.

Alongside health, these pollutants also have a significant effect on plant life and ecosystems. These problems, including eutrophication, acidification and plant damage, have decreased in recent years. However, they are still widespread – for example the long-term objective for limiting ozone was exceeded across 87 percent of Europe’s agricultural area in 2012, the report shows.

Posted in Air Quality, Europe | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

London must move faster on air pollution

Posted on November 23, 2014 by Respro® UK Ltd

Thanks to European judges, the UK government may be taking a closer interest in Boris Johnson’s strategy for cleaning London’s air. A case wonin the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by environmental group Client Earth has increased the legal pressure for Britain’s big cities to bring down the levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) spewed in them by diesel engines and inhaled in them by human beings. The capital is a serious NO2 offender. It needs to do more if both the city and the nation are to be brought into line.
At a recent air quality conference organised by London Councils and the City of London Corporation, the seriousness and costs of air pollution in all its forms were laid out with alarming clarity. Dr Gary Fuller of King’s College, who monitors the stuff, said NO2 exceeds EU limits by “factors of between two and three” in some London locations, including far fromcentral hotspots, such as next to Brixton tube station and on Putney High Street.
Those EU limits were set in 1998 and were meant to have been met four years ago. Current forecasts suggest London won’t get there until after 2030 unless serious action is taken. Better progress has been made against particulate matter – smoke, dust, dirt and chemicals substantially caused by motor vehicles – but we’re still far short of what the World Health Organisation wants to see.

What Fuller called the “health burden” is heavy. The mayor agrees, accepting the findings of a report he commissioned which estimated that 4,300 Londoners died prematurely as a result of air pollution in 2008 alone. Bad air in the lungs is linked to bronchitis, asthma, strokes, cancerand, top of the list, heart disease. Dr Iarla Kilbane-Dawe described how particulates (PM) coat the lungs and lodge in the heart and brain. He suggested two quick air pollution remedies: one, switching from diesel to clean fuel (he stressed that petrol qualifies); two, reducing vehicle speeds and weights. “It’s not just soot from exhausts that drives the PM,” he said, “it’s also friction – abrasion of road surfaces.”

Not all London’s air quality problems come from motor vehicles, but the difference made by removing them from streets can be dramatic. Kilbane-Dawe showed an image from a piece of King’s College research illustrating the huge enhancement in air quality in Regent Street on a pre-Christmas day when it was closed to traffic compared with adjoining Oxford Street at the same time.
All this makes Johnson’s air quality approach look weak. Rather than slowing vehicle speeds, he’s sought to increase them. As a gift to motorists, he’s halved the size of the congestion charging zone. His proposed ultra low emission zone (ULEZ) is predicted to take London two thirds of the distance it must travel to meet EU NO2 requirements, but it won’t even start to come into effect until 2020.

At his monthly question time on Wednesday, shortly after the ECJ decision came through, the mayor defended his record. “We’re in the lead, we’re doing lots of stuff, we’re taking huge amounts of flack from drivers to make vehicles cleaner,” he said. He has a case. There are more hybrid buses, albeit fewer so far than originally planned, and old ones have had a greening retrofit. Some steps have been taken to clean up the taxi fleet. Johnson has encouraged cycling, which partly mitigates his generally bad decisions over roads. If the ULEZ is too little, too late, it is more than the national government has achieved, a point that’s been made by none other than the lawyer who conducted Client Earth’s legal challenge.
Johnson has also had some unfair press coverage, a novel experience for a politician most of the media adore. He was right to dismiss as “bollocks” reports that Oxford Street is the most polluted in the world, a story that began with the misrepresentation of some of King’s College’s work. It’s true that London isn’t the world’s worst for air quality. It’s also true that it’s improved. The problem is that it isn’t improving enough or fast enough.
Client Earth’s Euro court win, together with the EU’s own action against the UK, should concentrate reluctant minds a little more. Johnson complained on Wednesday that if London received the lion’s share ofgovernment funds for ultra low emission vehicles “we could spend it far better than any other place in Britain”. He and his pals up river have a clear common interest in tackling London’s air pollution problem speedily. It’s time they got together and put their foot down.

via London must move faster on air pollution | UK news | theguardian.com.

Posted in Air Quality, Europe, London, UK | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tackling the Czech Republic’s poor air quality

Posted on November 21, 2014 by Respro® UK Ltd

November saw the release of an annual government-commissioned report on the state of the environment in the Czech Republic. While the gist of the report maintained that a number of factors continued to improve, including water quality and canalisation, air quality was found to be a major problem. It found that in 2013, 55 percent of Czechs were still being exposed to above-average levels of the toxic chemical benzopyrene. Additionally, many cities suffer from smog and ground level ozone, while heating plants were found to account for 41 percent of dangerous PM10 particulate matter being inhaled by Czechs. Last year, the government spent more than 27 billion crowns on improving the environment. Since joining the EU, the country has been able to source around 120 billion crowns from EU funds to this end – but has only utilised 43 percent of total allocated funds for the 2007-2013 period. So is the new government doing enough?

Vojtěch Kotecký is an expert on environmental matters in the Czech Republic, previously representing the Hnutí duha environmental campaign group, and now with analytical firm Glopolis. I sat down with him to discuss the report’s implications.

“The new report once again shows that the air quality in the Czech Republic is very bad. Last year, according to conservative estimates, something like 1,600 people died in the Czech Republic because of air pollution. And additionally, thousands more are sick because of air pollution. This is an issue that the government and city councils need to start dealing with.”

What are the causes of this poor air quality? Does it still relate to a transition from the former heavily industrialised communist economy?

“It is actually a combination of several different factors across different parts of the country. In some parts of the Czech Republic, especially the north-east, the main cause of heavy air pollution is the old heavy industry. And there is increasing evidence that a substantial part of that is actually air pollution from Polish, rather than Czech industry. But local Czech factories, and especially steel mills are also a significant part of mix.

“In other parts of the country, especially in the countryside, in some small villages, heating with coal is a significant problem. In some poor villages, people continue to heat their homes with coal using old stoves, and in some cases people even burn their waste.”

One possible solution to that might be – perhaps not the most ecological – but to switch to natural gas.

“A switch to natural gas is a beneficial move, but it is also something of a trap. This is what the government heavily subsidised in the early 1990s, and it genuinely helped to improve air quality in many Czech villages. The problem is that when the price of natural gas increased, people switched back to coal.”

So what can be done to encourage people in such villages to switch to a more environmentally friendly option – which is presumably also better for their health, as they are the ones who end up breathing the fumes.

“It seems that the only way we can deal with this local heating problem is that the government subsidises the insulation of houses. And also clean, renewable heating, which does not cause air pollution. This can be modern, high tech stoves that use biomass pellets. And solar panels and other solutions, which use locally-sourced renewable resources, and at the same time do not cause air pollution.”

Given recent scandals surrounding the Czech government’s subsidising of solar panels, is that an idea that anyone in the government is going to want to listen to right now?

“Despite all the problems, it seems that the government understands the need to support solar heating. And there are subsidies available for households that want to install solar heating so they reduce their use of gas or coal, especially for warming water.”

And is this something that the Czech national government does better with, or does it require a sort of nudge from the European Union – not to mention EU money too?

“The Czechoslovak government was very successful in the early 1990s. We had very strong air pollution legislation, which substantially improved matters. The problem was much, much worse in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Just as an example, we decreased sulphur dioxide emissions by more than 90 percent over the 1990s, which was a major success. The problem is that this process has slowed down over the last several years, and we need to combine European and national legislation in order to deal with the problem.”

The Czech government has said it wants to spend 9 billion crowns in 2015 subsidising a switch from old-fashioned stoves, while another 30 million has been set aside for the promotion of energy saving and renewable energy sources. I contacted the Ministry of the Environment and they put me in touch with the ministry’s head of air quality division, Gabriela Srbová. I began by asking her if the government intends to react, on a policy level, to the rather disconcerting findings of the report:
“Why is air quality in the Czech Republic relatively poor? The main issue is meteorological conditions….”

Are suggesting that the main reason air quality is poor is down to meteorological conditions? As opposed to emissions?

“It is not the most important, but one of the important factors. The biggest problem regarding air quality in the Czech Republic are suspended particles and benzopyrenes.”

Which come from?

“They come most from localised heating of households, from traffic and partly from energy plants and other industrial sources…There is an issue related to localised heating of households. Because we have very limited ways to manage or somehow eliminate poor or obsolete boilers in households. We can promote change, but up to now we have been unable to insist on it. We possess such an instrument by way of the Air Protection Act, which came into force in 2012. It says that from 2022, households cannot use any boilers in households worse that the 3rd emission class – that is our standard for boilers. So this effectively eliminates the worst boilers causing a mass part of air pollution.”

So you are suggesting that their use will be phased out over time. That their use will just gradually disappear, which will then cause an improvement in air quality.

“We hope so.”

And what about, in general, people burning coal in this day and age for their own heating? Is there some way to eliminate that completely?

“We can promote a change of fuels. As we plan to implement, under the [EU’s] Operational Programme, replacement of obsolete boilers with new ones that burn biomass in particular.”

So is the Environment Ministry at the moment committed to seeing that future reports on the environment show a demonstrable improvement in air quality as compared to the latest report?

“Definitely. Because all these activities we are taking are for this very purpose – to improve air quality in the Czech Republic. And a number of analyses show that this is the right approach: to replace household boilers. Some policies also impact upon stationary sources. And also a number of activities are designed to impact of pollution caused by traffic.”

From what I understand, that is in large part a question for city councils. So how is the ministry co-ordinating with city councils to reduce traffic, or working nationwide on its own initiative?

“We have given city councils an instrument to reduce traffic within their respective [urban] areas, or within settlements, by designing so-called ‘low emission zones’. And it is in their power, if it is at all possible, to create such zones. There are several conditions connected with the possibility of creating such a zone.”

In our interview, Vojtěch Kotecký picked up on the problem car pollution in the Czech Republic:

“A third part of the problem is air pollution in big cities, which is primarily caused by car traffic. This is a well-known issue that is also encountered in West European countries. It seems that in Prague, Brno and other Czech cities air pollution actually kills more people than car accidents do. This is something that city councils, rather than the national government need to deal with. And it seems that, for example, the London congestion charge would serve as an inspiration. And actually Prague City Council has been thinking about a similar approach for many years.”

So why the delay? Why is it still in the studying phase?

“Because things are much slower in this country when it comes to governance. Prague may be a cosmopolitan metropolis, but it is definitely not Berlin or London. Czech politicians, even politicians in Prague, are slower when it comes to such things…”

And you don’t think there is any kind of ideological resistance or anything like that? In terms of, you know ‘we must let the invisible hand of the market prevail because we have suffered through communism and can’t possibly regulate or limit such things.’
“I think that this used to be a part of the problem, for example in Prague City Council ten years ago. But it has improved considerably because the Council understood that they need to deal with the situation. The real problem is a combination of political and bureaucratic neglect. An inability to move things forward; very slow decision-making, and a focus on other matters. Prague City Council basically spent the last fifteen years building roads rather than dealing with excessive car traffic in the city.”

There is a relatively new national coalition government in place. How would you rate both their theoretical policies with regards to air quality, and also their record of action so far?

“The government claims that it wants to deal with air pollution just like every other government of the last ten or so years has stated. The real question is whether it will come forward with new legislation and new money – subsidies for households and other solutions – and we will still need to see. It seems that, in theory, the government is prepared to tackle some of these issues, and that it understands what needs to be done. But in this country, quite often the real question is not whether politicians understand what should be done in theory, but whether they are able to make practical decisions; whether they are able to put money on the table; to put forth real, tough draft legislation and so on. And that will be the real test for this government.”

So currently, there is no draft legislation or anything similar making its way through the halls of power?

“About three years ago, we had a major change in air quality laws. This represented a major improvement, but we still need to see how far it will actually be able to go. But I think that right now, the far more important question is whether the government will be able to work with that legislation, to deal with individual factories; whether it will be able to open serious negotiations with Poland about Polish air pollution; whether it will put much, much more money on the table for the insulation of houses and renewable heating, because this is something the government, again, understands in principle. Some money is already available, but it is definitely not enough.”

How much is needed? Billions?
“Yes, billions of crowns. Environmental groups estimated that something like half a billion euros would be necessary annually to deal with the problem over the next ten or twenty years. And last but not least the government also needs to comprehend that the problems that will have to be tackled by city councils are to some extent also the government’s problems. And that it should either approach the city councils and force them to act or work with them to start dealing with car pollution in cities.”

via Radio Prague – Tackling the Czech Republic’s poor air quality.

Posted in Air Quality, Europe | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Impact of wood-burning fires on Utah’s air quality

Posted on November 21, 2014 by Respro® UK Ltd

When cold wintry weather rolls in this weekend may Utahns may be tempted to light wood burning fires to stay warm, but that might not be good everyone else.

Bryce Bird, the director of the Utah Department of Environmental Air Quality explains why.

The Wood-Burn Program is designed to prevent particle pollution by restricting or banning wood burning during inversion periods. Emissions from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces contribute to the particulate pollution that builds up during temperature inversions.

Wood burning Inversions form when a dense layer of cold air is trapped under a layer of warm air. The warm air acts like a lid, trapping pollutants in the cold air near the valley floor. The mountains act like a bowl, keeping the cold air-and the pollutants in it- in the valleys.

Wood burn restrictions are a proactive measure that can reduce the levels of particulates emitted both immediately before and during inversions.

Impacts from Wood Smoke

Because wood doesn’t burn completely, wood smoke contains a wide range of harmful substances. Pollutants in wood smoke include particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), some of which are toxic or considered carcinogenic. These pollutants include:

Benzene
Formaldehyde
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Particulates
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
Sulfur dioxide

The poor air circulation that typifies inversions keeps wood smoke close to the ground where it can enter homes and businesses. The fine particle pollutants from wood burning are so small that even well-insulated houses can’t keep them out. Scientific studies have shown that particle pollution levels inside homes reach up to 70 percent of the pollution levels outdoors. Studies have also shown that people using wood-burning stoves and fireplaces to heat their homes are regularly exposed to high levels of fine particulate matter in their indoor air, particularly if there is little fresh air circulating inside the house.

Health Effects

Because the fine particles in wood smoke are too small to be filtered out by the upper respiratory system, they lodge deeply into the lungs, causing irritation and decreasing lung functioning. The toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that are released in wood smoke can bind with these particles, compounding the health impacts. Short-term exposures to particles can aggravate lung disease, cause asthma attacks and acute bronchitis, and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections.

People with heart or lung disease, such as congestive heart failure, angina, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, or asthma may experience health effects earlier and at lower smoke levels than healthy people. Older adults are more likely to be affected by smoke, possibly because they are more likely to have chronic heart or lung diseases than younger people. Children also are more susceptible to smoke because their respiratory systems are still developing, they breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults, and they’re more likely to be active outdoors.

Numerous studies link particulate levels to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and even early death. Research indicates that obesity or diabetes may increase the risk. Some studies also suggest that long-term PM2.5 exposure may be linked to cancer and to harmful developmental and reproductive effects such as infant mortality and low birth weight.

via Impact of wood-burning fires on Utah’s air quality – Good4Utah.com.

Posted in Air Quality, USA & Canada | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment