4.1 Article

Airborne pollen calendar of Portugal: a 15-year survey (2002-2017)

期刊

ALLERGOLOGIA ET IMMUNOPATHOLOGIA
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 194-201

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.aller.2019.06.012

关键词

Pollen; Aeroallergens; Pollen calendar; Aerobiology; Portugal

资金

  1. Portuguese Society of Altergology and Clinical Immunology (SPAIC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Data about the occurrence of airborne pollen enables the creation of pollen calendars with an approximation of flowering periods for the most common allergenic plant species in a specific area. The aim of this work is to provide pollen calendar for each of the seven monitoring regions of Portugal based on 15 years of airborne sampling, in order to chart the seasonal behaviour of the main allergenic pollen types. Material and methods: Airborne pollen monitoring (2002-2017) was carried out by the Portuguese Aerobiotogy Network (RPA), using Hirst-type volumetric spore traps, following well-established guidelines. Results: A total of 14 airborne pollen types were recorded at RPA monitoring stations, of which 64.2% belong to trees, 28.5% to herbs and 7.1% to weeds. The airborne pollen spectrum is dominated by important allergenic pollen types such as Poaceae, Quercus spp., Urticaceae and Cupressaceae. The average pollen index was 42.557 in mainland Portugal and 3.818 in the Islands. There was an increased trend in the airborne pollen levels over the years, namely in Coimbra, Evora and Porto, compared to the remaining regions. Conclusion: This report provides accessible information about the main allergenic airborne pollen types occurring in the course of the year. The pollen calendars charted for each Portuguese region showed that the occurrence of most allergenic taxa was centred from March to July. Pollen peak concentrations were detected earlier in the Centre and Lisbon and Tagus Valley regions, and later in the remaining regions. (C) 2019 SEICAP. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据