4.5 Review

Toxicity of airborne particles-established evidence, knowledge gaps and emerging areas of importance

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2019.0322

Keywords

particulate matter; toxicology; epidemiology; non-exhaust; microplastics; metabolomics

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research [NIHR 200 880]
  2. MRC [MR/S020810/1, MR/S020810/2, MR/L01341X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. NERC [NE/S006729/1, NE/N007018/1, NE/S006729/2] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epidemiological research has taught us a great deal about the health effects of airborne particulate matter (PM), particularly cardiorespiratory effects of combustion-related particles. This has been matched by toxicological research to define underlying mechanistic pathways. To keep abreast of the substantial challenges that air pollution continues to throw at us requires yet more strides to be achieved. For example, being aware of the most toxic components/sources and having a definitive idea of the range of associated disease outcomes. This review discusses approaches designed to close some of these knowledge gaps. These include a focus on particles arising from non-exhaust PM at the roadside and microplastics-both of which are becoming more relevant in the light of a shift in PM composition in response to global pressure to reduce combustion emissions. The application of hypothesis-free approaches in both mechanistic studies and epidemiology in unveiling unexpected relationships and generating novel insights is also discussed. Previous work, strengthening the evidence for both the adverse effects and benefits of intervention tell us that the sooner we act to close knowledge gaps, increase awareness and develop creative solutions, the sooner we can reduce the public health burden attributable to these complex and insidious environmental pollutants. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Air quality, past present and future'.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available