Environment Pollution and Climate Change
Open Access

Air pollution; Nanoparticles

Introduction

Air pollution hotspots are places where people are more likely to suffer adverse health effects from air pollution emissions. They are especially common in densely populated urban areas, where pollution may come from both stationary sources (like factories) and mobile sources. These sources’ emissions have been linked to a variety of health issues, including asthma in children, cancer, and respiratory disease. A significant issue is fine particulate matter like diesel soot, which is responsible for more than 3.2 million premature deaths annually worldwide. Because it is so small, it can get into the lungs and the bloodstream. External video Video Icon AirVisual Earth – real-time map of global wind and air pollution although air pollution hotspots affect a variety of populations, certain groups are more likely to be located in hotspots. Diesel soot is concentrated in densely populated areas, and one in six people in the United States live near a diesel pollution hot spot. Racial and/or income disparities in pollution exposure have been the subject of previous research. Major roads, toxic storage and disposal facilities, and other hazardous land uses typically occur in areas with low property values and incomes. Other types of social vulnerability, such as race, the inability to influence regulation, and the inability to relocate to areas with less environmental pollution, can all be proxies for low socioeconomic status. Environmental pollution has a disproportionate impact on these communities, making them more vulnerable to diseases like asthma and cancer. Fertility has been linked to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). It has been reported that PAHs administer their toxic effects through oxidative stress by increasing the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which can result in inflammation and cell death. Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) is a well-known PAH and carcinogen that is frequently found in exhaust fumes and cigarette smoke. DNA damage and decreased DNA repair may result from prolonged exposure to PAHs. Sperm motility has been linked to BaP exposure, and this effect is exacerbated by increased exposure. BaPs can affect folliculogenesis and ovarian development by reducing the number of ovarian germ cells by triggering cell death pathways and inducing inflammation that can lead to ovarian damage. Studies have also demonstrated that BaPs can affect folliculogenesis and ovarian development by reducing the number of ovarian germ cells. The accumulation of liquids and solids suspended in the air is referred to as PM. When humans are exposed to these in everyday life, they can be harmful, and more research indicates that these effects may be more widespread than initially thought; especially in terms of male fertility. There are different weights of PM, such as PM2.5, which are tiny particles with a width of 2.5 microns or less, and PM10, which are particles with a diameter of 10 microns or less [1-5].

Discussion

According to a California-based study, sperm motility decreased and morphology became more abnormal as exposure to PM2.5 increased. In a similar vein, a study in Turkey examined the fertility of men who collect tolls and are thus exposed to high levels of traffic pollutants daily. In Poland, exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 led to an increase in the percentage of cells with immature chromatin-DNA that has not fully developed or has developed abnormally. Along with carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides, traffic pollution frequently contains high levels of PM10. Sperm motility and count were significantly lower in this study group than in a control group that had limited exposure to air pollution.

While overall effects on fertility in women did not appear to be significant, an association between increased exposure to PM10 and early miscarriage was found. In women undergoing IVF, exposure to PM 2.5, a smaller particulate matter, was found to affect conception rates but not live birth rates. When present in high concentrations, ground-level ozone (O3) is considered a pollutant in the air and is frequently present in industrial smog. In the presence of sunlight, chemical reactions involving NO_x (nitrous oxides, particularly from combustion) and volatile organic compounds produce the majority of O₃.

There is currently no evidence to suggest that ozone exposure has a negative effect on spontaneous fertility in either males or females. There is limited research on the effect that ozone pollution does have on fertility. However, studies have shown that in vitro fertilisation (IVF) results are affected by high levels of ozone pollution, which is often a problem in the summer. The majority of research on this subject focuses on the direct human exposure to air pollution, but other studies have examined the impact of air pollution on gametes and embryos within IVF laboratories. In fact, in an IVF population, NOx and ozone pollutants were linked with lower rates of live birth. Ozone pollution is considered to have a negative impact on the success of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) when occurring at high levels because multiple studies have reported a marked improvement in embryo quality, implantation, and pregnancy rates after IVF laboratories have implemented air filters in a concerted effort to reduce levels of air pollution. As a result, ozone pollution is considered to have a negative impact on the success of ART [6-10].

Conclusions

In terms of male fertility, ozone is reported to cause a significant decrease in sperm concentration measured in semen after exposure. Similarly, sperm vitality (the proportion of alive spermatozoa in a sample) was demonstrated to be diminished in a few studies. This demonstrates that ozone air pollution exhibits a significantly negative effect of air pollution on this parameter. On the other hand, ozone is thought to act in a biphasic manner However; the findings regarding the impact of exposure to ozone on male fertility are inconsistent, indicating the need for additional research. According to a joint study conducted by the World Bank and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, productivity losses are accompanied by deaths from diseases brought on by air pollution, which in turn costs the global economy $5 trillion annually.

Diseases linked to air pollution accounted for one in ten deaths in 2013, and the situation is getting worse. In the developing world, the issue is even worse. Children under the age of five in countries with lower incomes are 60 times more likely to die from air pollution than children in countries with higher incomes. “The actual costs to the global economy are far higher than $5 trillion,” the report states, “because additional economic losses caused by air pollution, including health costs and the adverse effect on agricultural and other productivity were not calculated in the report.”

1. Akbari H, Pomerantz M, Taha H (2001) Cool surfaces and shade trees to reduce energy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Sol Ener 70: 295-310.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Armson D, Stringer P, Ennos AR (2012) The effect of tree shade and grass on surface and globe temperatures in an urban area. Urb Forest Urb Green 11: 245-255.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Arnberger A, Eder R (2012) Exploring coping behaviours of Sunday and work day visitors due to dense use conditions in an urban forest. Urb Forest Urb Green 11: 439-449.

Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Astbury B, Rogers P (2004) Evaluation of the stronger families and communities strategy: Gilles Plains community garden case study. RMIT Univer Collabor Instit Research.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

5. Heidt V, Neef M (2008) Benefits of urban green space for improving urban climate. Eco, plan, manage urb forest: Internat perspect, Springer: New York 23: 84-96.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Duryea ML, Blakeslee GM, Hubbard WG, Vasquez RA (1996) Wind and trees: A survey of homeowners after hurricane Andrew. J Arboricul 22: 44-50.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. CNT (2010) Integrating valuation methods to recognize green infrastructure's multiple benefits. Center Neighbor Tech 11: 245-255.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollu 116: 381-389.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Sanders RA (1986) Urban vegetation impacts on the hydrology of Dayton, Ohio Urb Eco 9: 361-376.
10. Xiao Q, McPherson EG, Ustin SL, Grismer ME,   Simpson JR (2000) winter rainfall interception by two mature open- grown trees in Davis, California. Hydro Proc 14: 763-784.

 Google Scholar, Crossref