4.8 Review

Estimation of leaded (Pb) gasoline's continuing material and health impacts on 90 US urbanized areas

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 248-257

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2010.08.006

关键词

Background soil lead; Lead aerosols; Precautionary approach; Soil lead; Urban Pb mapping

资金

  1. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The subject of this paper is lead (Pb) additives in gasoline and their material and health impact from Pb dust inputs into 90 US urbanized areas (UAs). The mass of Pb additives for 90 UAs as a total of the US Pb additives in 1982 were estimated from vehicle travel, vehicle fuel economy (miles/gallon), ratio of leaded to unleaded fuel, and Pb/gallon. About 500 billion (109) miles of travel in 90 UA's during 1982 account for similar to 18,000 metric tons (MT), or nearly 30% of the US Pb additives in 1982. Applying the 1982 proportions to the 90 UAs for 1950 through 1982 fuel sales by state accounts for -1.4 million MT Pb of the US national total of 4.6 million MT during the same years. Fates of Pb additives in engine systems were used to calculate Pb aerosol inputs into the 90 UAs. The inputs range from 100's to more than 100,000 MT of Pb depending on a given UA's traffic flow patterns. Soils are the reservoir of urban Pb dust. The median background soil Pb for the US is 16.5 mg/kg (range 10.3 to 30.1 mg/kg), and less by an order of magnitude or more than soil Pb within larger UAs. Recognizing the US input of massive gasoline Pb additives into UAs assists with comprehending soil Pb differences between large and small UAs, inner and outer areas of UAs, health disparities, and school achievement issues within UAs. The findings underscore the need for controlling accumulated exterior urban Pb dust from gasoline additives along with paint sources that have accumulated in soil to meet the goal of primary childhood Pb exposure prevention. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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