Researchers pinpoint how trees play role in smog production

Apr 25, 2013
Image: Wikipedia.

After years of scientific uncertainty and speculation, researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill show exactly how trees help create one of society's predominant environmental and health concerns: air pollution.

It has long been known that trees produce and emit isoprene, an abundant molecule in the air known to protect leaves from oxygen damage and . However, in 2004, researchers, contrary to popular assumptions, revealed that isoprene was likely involved in the production of particulate matter, that can get lodged in lungs, lead to lung cancer and asthma, and damage other tissues, not to mention the environment.

But exactly how was anybody's guess.

Jason Surratt, assistant professor of environmental sciences and engineering at the Gillings School of Global Public Health, now reveals one mechanism by which isoprene contributes to the production of these tiny, potentially health-damaging particles.

The study found that isoprene, once it is chemically altered via exposure to the sun, reacts with man-made to create particulate matter. Nitrogen oxides are pollutants created by cars, trucks, aircrafts, and other large scale sources.

"The work presents a dramatic new wrinkle in the arguments for reducing man-made pollutants worldwide," said Surratt, whose work was published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Isoprene evolved to protect trees and plants, but because of the presence of nitrogen oxides, it is involved in producing this negative effect on health and the environment."

"We certainly can't cut down all the trees," Surratt adds, "but we can work on reducing these man-made emissions to cut down the production of fine particulate matter."

With the precise mechanism now revealed, researchers can plug it into air quality models for better predicting episodes of and potential effects on earth's climate. The advance would allow researchers and environmental agencies to evaluate and make regulatory decisions that impact public health and climate change.

"We observe nature's quirks, but we must always consider that our actions do have repercussions," said Surratt. "It's the interaction between these natural and man-made emissions that produces this air pollution, smog and – and now we know one reason for how it happens."

Explore further: Global warming blamed for Pacific coral bleaching

Related Stories

Plant body clock observed in tropical forest research

Sep 26, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Predictions of the ground-level pollutant ozone will be more accurate in future according to research published today by environment scientists at research centres including the University of Birmingham in ...

Pregnant mothers at risk from air pollution

Oct 07, 2011

A Californian-based study has looked in detail at air quality and the impact of traffic-related air pollution on premature birth. Published in BioMed Central's open access journal Environmental Health, results from this s ...

New study shows how trees clean the air in London

Oct 05, 2011

New research by scientists at the University of Southampton has shown how London's trees can improve air quality by filtering out pollution particulates, which are damaging to human health.

Recommended for you

Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

18 hours ago

As a conscripted soldier during the Contra War of the 1980s, Esteban Ruiz used to flee from battles because he didn't want to have to kill anyone. But now, as the 47-year-old farmer prepares to fight for ...

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

Dec 20, 2014

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sean_W
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2013
After all the lies told by "environmentalists" I give this zero (give or take) credibility.
Sinister1811
3 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2013
After all the lies told by "environmentalists" I give this zero (give or take) credibility.


And exactly what "lies" would they be? Things that you don't agree with?
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2013
After all the lies told by "environmentalists" I give this zero (give or take) credibility.


And exactly what "lies" would they be? Things that you don't agree with?

That would be my guess.
beleg
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2013
Isoprene is fine up to when strides in our evolution provided NOx.
beleg
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2013
Further reading:
http://aob.oxford...1/5.full

Here an excerpt from the Introduction only

@Sean W
You might be interested in the following to uphold your 0 'creditability' assertion.
If you adhere to one of your past presidents statements quoted in the intro.

It surprises most people to learn that plants emit much more hydrocarbon into the atmosphere than that coming from human activities, especially during extended warm weather (Purves et al., 2004), when hydrocarbon inputs into the atmosphere can be especially deleterious (Monson and Holland, 2001; Purves et al., 2004). This fact is behind the famous quote of Ronald Reagan that 'approximately 80 % of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation' (Pope, 1980). The large amount of hydrocarbon coming from plants was used to suggest that air pollution control was not needed, quoting further: 'so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources'. "

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.