The article I chose was highlighted in Huffington Post’s
Science section and was titled “This Simple Graph Reveals Some Very Good News
About Air Pollution” and was published online 21 September 2016 (1). When I went about looking for an article about air pollution, I wanted to
discuss a recent paper and specifically sought out the Huffington Post because
I thought something with a clickbait title would be most interesting to scrutinize.
Specifically, the Huffington Post’s article is about air pollution that results
in acid rain. While we discussed the Montreal Protocol and its relationship to
CFCs and the ozone hole, there was another piece of legislation passed in 1970 in
the United States (and Europe (2))
that sought to regulate the amount of acid pollution entering the atmosphere. In
the United States, one of the goals of the Clean Air Act was to reach National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by 1975 by limiting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides emissions (3). When emitted into the air, sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides react to form acids, thus making them major
contributors to acid rain. Acid rain is harmful to the environment as it can
increase the rate of erosion, damage trees, and kill aquatic life (4).
The Huffington Post article is based on a very recent
report in the ACS peer-reviewed journal Environmental
Science and Technology that was published 1 September 2016 (web) (5).
The title of the literature article is “An Optical Dye Method for Continuous
Determination of Acidity in Ice Cores.” I probably would have never stumbled
across this article for a blog post about air pollution because the title
discusses the development of a methodology and does not mention anything about air pollution. The authors of the paper developed
a reliable and relatively fast Continuous Flow Analysis (CFA) technique using
the organic dyes bromophenol blue and chlorophenol red to determine pH of ice
core meltwater. Previous techniques for this analysis include electrical
conductivity measurements (ECM) and dielectric profiling (DEP). However, these
techniques are limited in their pH range, ease of use, and slow response times.
After the authors developed the CFA method and determine optimized conditions,
they analyzed three ice core samples (Greenland Ice Core NGRIP, Greenland Firn
Core NEGIS, and Antarctic Ice Core RICE) and compared the results to those of
prior studies using traditional analytical techniques. The main discussion of
these results shows that massive volcanic eruptions and large biomass burning
events (wildfires) correspond to more acidic pHs in the samples (which was previously known).
The Huffington Post article is very short and begins
with the bold statement that levels of acidic air pollutants have returned to
pre-Industrial levels according to analysis of the Greenland ice core samples.
The “graph” from the title of the article is then displayed, which shows that
the acid content detected in the cores reached a maximum around 1970 before
sharply decreasing to the “baseline” range from 1900. However, the massive
spike around 1912 is not addressed, but presumably is related to the Katmai
volcanic eruption in Alaska as shown in the table below.
Interestingly enough, that graph is not even reported
in the research paper or the corresponding supplementary information (SI). It
is from the press release webpage (6) from the University of Copenhagen, where the research was performed.
Additionally, upon an initial reading of the paper, the authors never
specifically conclude that the decrease of strongly acidic substances in ice
cores is directly related to the Clean Air Act or other legislation, as the Huffington
Post article suggests. The conclusion that the increase in acid pollution is a
result from industrial processes and the decrease is from policy-directed
regulation is attributed to a written statement from the paper’s lead author, Dr.
Helle Astrid Kjær. One good thing about the Huffington Post article is that
another scientist was contacted for an interview; Dr. William R. Stockwell, a
professor of chemistry at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Stockwell gave
a statement to the journalist that he was pleasantly surprised with Kjær’s
findings, but cautioned against making broad conclusions. In particular, he
stated that while the evidence supports a decrease in acid pollution in the arctic,
he doubts acid pollution has decreased to pre-Industrial levels in the
continental United States. Finally, the article states that while the findings
are promising in the realm of acid pollution, they say nothing about CO2
levels or other air pollutants, which are important players in global warming
and other environmental and health problems.
Overall, I would rate the Huffington Post article as a
7/10. I take points off for the clickbait
title and not actually discussing the findings reported in the paper. I think
it is important that the graph that was central in the Huffington Post article
was not published in the peer-reviewed source. However, I didn’t find anything
that was an absurd exaggeration and I also really liked how statements from one
of the authors was included, as well as the inclusion of Prof. Stockwell’s
statement that was obtained specifically for the article. I think Stockwell’s
statement sort of tamed the clickbait title and added a valuable perspective to
the issue. I thought that discussing the actual gases emitted and how they
react to become pollutants in the atmosphere, providing a good background on the
Clean Air Act, and discussing that the study does not say anything about other
pollutants granted the Huffington Post article merit,. Finally, the article
does have in-text links to reliable sources and the research article which is a
big positive.
[1] Freeman, David. “This Simple Graph Reveals Some Very Good
News About Air Pollution.” 21 September 2016.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/this-simple-graph-reveals-some-very-good-news-about-air-pollution_us_57e155b8e4b04a1497b6c0af?ir=Science&utm_hp_ref=science
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/this-simple-graph-reveals-some-very-good-news-about-air-pollution_us_57e155b8e4b04a1497b6c0af?ir=Science&utm_hp_ref=science
[2] “Assessment of Effectiveness of European Air Quality
Policies and Measures.” 4 October 2004.
[3] “Summary of the Clean Air Act.”
[4] National
Atmospheric Deposition Program. “Acid Rain.”
[5] Kjær, H. A.;
Vallelonga, P.; Svensson, A.; Kristensen, M. E. L.; Tibuleac, C.; Winstrup, M.
Kipfstuhl, S. “An
Optical Dye Method for Continuous Determination of Acidity in Ice Cores.”
Environ. Sci. Technol. Article ASAP. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00026
[6]
“Acidity in
atmosphere minimised to preindustrial levels” 19 September 2016.
Nice post! I liked learning about a new and simple application of an existing measurement technique though I found her article to be pretty dense with her devoting a lot of space in the results section to discussion of the finer points of the optical dye method. (maybe this will be important and time saving for the science community) and was also impressed that Kjær found time to publish 16 times since 2009!
ReplyDeleteI liked the restraint shown in Freeman's article (title aside) and as with other articles we've seen, I thought the most interesting points came via quotes from the author of the source material.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! The first question that came to my mind when analyzing the simple graph was why is the graph plotted backwards in regards to the years? Maybe this is the norm though. I too appreciated Stockwell's statements because I too found it hard to believe that acidity of the atmosphere returned to preindustrial levels. You mention in your post that the Huffington Post mentions that the publication does not talk about carbon dioxide levels or other air pollutants. I am confused as to why the Huffington Post threw this in the article. I do not believe the focus of the publication was to quantify carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. I believe the Huffington Post is trying to make a disproving correlation of the publication's findings. As stated in the publication "pH has been invoked as the major factor controlling in situ production of CO2 in Greenland ice cores and is thus a critical barrier to reconstructing CO2 greenhouse gas records from the Northern Hemisphere". If I understand this correctly, they are saying that the more acidic the pH, the more carbon dioxide formed. Therefore, the graph in the Huffington post showing the carbon dioxide levels increasing is contradictory to the findings of the publication. This is very interesting indeed and I would like to hear from Kjaer if he thinks that his findings are logical because of the increase in carbon dioxide levels.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, Josh. As for the CO2 comment, here is the article referenced for why pH is important for the in situ generation of CO2 in ice cores:
DeleteJ. Glaciol. 2000, 46, 45−53.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/igsoc/jog/2000/00000046/00000152/art00008
Basically, CO2 can be generated in chemical reactions in the ice due to impurities and is not necessarily a reflection of the CO2 that was captured from the atmosphere at the time the ice froze. The Kjær paper also discusses that pH can control the rate of reactions, so it is not impossible to imagine a more acidic pH increasing the rate of reactions, perhaps even the ones that form CO2 in situ.
Additionally, the Kjær paper discusses the limitations of previous techniques in that as the ice cores melt, that meltwater absorbs CO2 which can then influence the pH and give false readings. One of the many benefits of the new technique is that the Copenhagan continuous flow analysis set-up uses a "sealed debubbler” to separate the ambient air in the lab from then sample, therefore limiting the amount of CO2 influence on the sample.
Here is the chemical equilibrium that shows the relationship between CO2, H2O, and carbonic acid (H2CO3):
CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3
I think your comment highlights how complex the analysis of ice cores can become due to the interplay of many different chemical compounds and their influence on each other.
I do not think the Kjaer paper makes a statement that says CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing or decreasing. I think we must be careful when trying to discuss two different systems - pollutants that play a role in acid rain and CO2. They might have areas that overlap, but I would be very cautious saying that acidic pollutants are responsible for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Acidic pollutants might play a small role in CO2 production, but I think direct anthropogenic sources such as the burning of coal and combustion in engines play a much larger role in this very complicated issue.
DeleteI really like the points you made in your post. I also think it's very interesting that the graph used in the Huffington Post was not inlcuded in the journal article but only in the press release. I'm not sure why this is like that but it does seem important to note. I'm glad the Huffington Post included comments from Stockwell. In the article he states that he is surprised that acid deposition in the Greenland ice sheet has returned to pre-industrial levels but he also adds that he doubts that atmospheric acid productions is below pre-industrial levels everywhere. I wonder where Stockwell thinks these levels are higher. I was thinking perhaps countries without strict air pollution laws for industry but I don't know much about this off the top of my head. Stockwell includes that he doubts acid production levels are lower than pre-industrial times in the US. I wonder why he thinks that. I wish the article included factors in the US that would lead to acid production.
ReplyDeleteHi Stacey. Here is a source that describes the release of nitrous oxides in the atmosphere from both natural and anthropogenic sources.
Deletehttp://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/nitrous-oxide-emissions
I would assume Stockwell's comments are based on how much acidic pollution we release into the atmosphere, even after the Clean Air Act.
This is a really good analysis and breakdown of the topic. I was wondering about acid rain when we were discussing the reactions in class yesterday that involved nitric acid I believe, so I'm glad we're moving to that next. I'm not a big fan of using data that wasn't presented in the publication, but in this case it gets the point across nicely to the reader. I do agree that the issue is much more complex than the Huff Post article leads on, and I think one of the major issues in scientific reporting in the general public is simplifying content without losing accuracy.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Taylor! I think it was a good choice to follow the "clickbait" idea of topic titles, since most people see these grandiose statements then read the news or secondary articles without checking the primary literature or other background sources. I thought it was also a good idea to find an article that mentioned sulfur dioxide and other gases that may not be commonly known greenhouse gases for the general audience. It was also odd to have the news article publish graphic data that wasn't in the primary source, but that could have just been an editing choice on both ends. I agree that this was a pretty good article, but does have the issue of not being as explicit in scientific details as it could have, but presenting an overall decent report.
ReplyDelete