4.8 Article

Criteria pollutant impacts of volatile chemical products informed by near-field modelling

期刊

NATURE SUSTAINABILITY
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 129-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-00614-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NOAA [NA17OAR4320101]
  2. Environmental Protection Agency STAR assistance agreement [RD83587301]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals that high air emissions from consumer, industrial, and commercial products contribute to potentially hazardous chemicals in the environment, especially affecting secondary pollutants in the atmosphere. Inhalation of consumer products may be a significant exposure pathway.
Consumer, industrial and commercial product use is a source of exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals. In addition, cleaning agents, personal care products, coatings and other volatile chemical products (VCPs) evaporate and react in the atmosphere, producing secondary pollutants. Here, we show that high air emissions from VCP use (>= 14 kg per person per yr, at least 1.7x higher than current operational estimates) are supported by multiple estimation methods and constraints imposed by ambient levels of ozone, hydroxyl radical reactivity and the organic component of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in Pasadena, California. A near-field model, which estimates human chemical exposure during or in the vicinity of product use, indicates that these high air emissions are consistent with organic product use up to similar to 75 kg per person per yr, and the inhalation of consumer products could be a non-negligible exposure pathway. After the PM(2.5)yield is constrained to 5% by mass, VCPs produce similar to 41% of the photochemical organic PM2.5(1.1 +/- 0.3 mu g m(-3)) and similar to 17% of the maximum daily 8 hr average ozone (9 +/- 2 ppb) in summer in Los Angeles. Therefore, both toxicity and ambient criteria pollutant formation should be considered when organic substituents are developed for VCPs in pursuit of safer and more sustainable products and cleaner air.

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

4.8
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