Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Air Pollution Reduces People's Ability To Focus on Everyday Tasks, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 27

A person's ability to focus on everyday tasks is affected by short-term exposure to air pollution, a study has found. The Guardian: Researchers analysed data from cognitive tests completed by 26 participants before and after they were exposed either to high levels of particulate matter (PM) using smoke from a candle, or clean air for an hour. The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, found that even brief exposure to high concentrations of PM affected participants' selective attention and emotion recognition -- regardless of whether they breathed normally or just through their mouth.

This can affect an individual's ability to concentrate on tasks, avoid distractions and behave in a socially appropriate way. "Participants exposed to air pollution were not as good at avoiding the distracting information," said Dr Thomas Faherty of the University of Birmingham, a co-author of the study. "So that means in daily life, you could get more distracted by things. Supermarket shopping is a good example ... it might mean that you get more distracted by impulse buys when you're walking along supermarket aisles because you're not able to focus on your task goals." The study also found that participants performed worse on cognitive tests evaluating emotional recognition after being exposed to PM air pollution.

Air Pollution Reduces People's Ability To Focus on Everyday Tasks, Study Finds

Comments Filter:
  • Well, you know, at some point the smoke becomes an optical issue.
  • In order to achieve peak inability to maintain impulse control, I typically add a little ethanol to the ambient air pollution.

  • by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Thursday February 06, 2025 @02:12PM (#65147587)
    Whether it be smell, taste, touch, noise, or visual, it's a distraction and hurts your focus. They're talking about smoke from a candle...something with an obvious smell. Similarly...if your coworker kept touching you on the back...your focus would diminish. It would be more interesting if they picked pollution that you cannot detect with your senses. All sensory input, especially unexpected or unpleasant will distract you and reduce your ability to focus.

    This worsens for most on the autism spectrum. People with high-functioning ASD have a harder time separating signal from noise with sensory input. It's why many autistic kiddos wear hearing protection in public. I have auditory processing disorder...which means I can hear better if I don't make eye contact or see visual distractions...if we're in a sports bar and there are TVs behind your head, I will have a tangibly harder time understanding you. My ears pick up the signal, but my brain can't multitask well enough to separate the words from the noise....and my ability to do so is tangibly worse than my non-engineer friends. Like my hearing will get 2x better if I am not making eye contact or looking at visually distracting things.

    I had a coworker from a specific country in SouthEast Asia where they don't shower or wear deodorant regularly and he STUNK...so bad you could tell which rooms he had been in hours after the meeting...I COULD NOT concentrate if he was around. More neurotypical people were better at just saying "gross" and moving on with their day...whereas a few of use who were more neurodiverse-presenting just were very bothered...same if you wear strong perfume...it's just really really distracting and distressing.

    One could do a simple control by comparing the results of the candle to fresh cut flowers in the room. However, I don't think they proved anything about air pollution, just sensory input.
    • Conversely, many of my coworkers stink like laundry fragrances, which in this country are mostly toxic. They shed so much of that crap that even though I use unscented detergent, when I get home my clothes smell like I use the scent-boosted stuff. It makes me gag.

      I agree with your assessment of what they tested. In order to do a valid test, they need to get completely scentless but harmful particles into the air somehow.

      • Conversely, many of my coworkers stink like laundry fragrances, which in this country are mostly toxic. They shed so much of that crap that even though I use unscented detergent, when I get home my clothes smell like I use the scent-boosted stuff. It makes me gag.

        Some years ago during an annual physical with my physician I mentioned a persistent rash on my wrists and hands, which lead to a recommendation to use unscented laundry detergent as the scents could be irritating my skin. I've been buying the unscented detergents for so long I forgot what the "normal" detergents smelled like until I a bought some of it again since the shop was out of unscented detergents the last time I was there. The fragrance just pervaded the house after doing a couple loads of laundry

      • Ever since Florida legalized medicinal marijuana, people go around the local Walmart absolutely reeking of pot. Anecdotally, the stench doesn't make me more inclined to impulsively buy things, it makes me want to grab my shit as quickly as possible and get out. More often than not, I end up forgetting things I'd intended to purchase, rather than buying more than I'd planned.

    • by mspohr ( 589790 )

      If you would read TFA (the scientific paper), you would discover that they did control for "sensory input". There was no difference when they blocked sensory input, just the same results of loss of concentration, etc.

      It's always a good idea to read the research before spouting off with your basement armchair theories.

  • It's mostly tire particulate. We've had zero emissions vehicles for so long that there isn't a lot of car emissions out there and it's not like we do a huge amount of manufacturing. So if you see smog it's composed almost entirely of little microscopic bits of tires.

    Ever wonder where your tires go when they wear down? You're breathing them.
    • >> So if you see smog it's composed almost entirely of little microscopic bits of tires.

      Let's see a cite to support that claim. Particulates from tires is definitely a thing, but it is mostly a surface pollution.

      "Data from Europe show that most of the mass of tire microplastics is deposited near roadsides". Then it can be washed into waterways as well.
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]

      • "Then it can be washed into waterways as well". Solving the problem once and for all.
        - Yeah but where does it...
        ONCE AND FOR ALL!
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You have some facts mixed up.

      https://e360.yale.edu/features... [yale.edu]

    • What fantasy city are you living in? I see heavy duty trucks blowing black smoke and unburnt diesel into the air, cars with blue clouds coming from their exhaust pipes, coating everything in a mist of partially burnt motor oil, cars driving around with their catalytic converters chopped off. I've never heard of smog being related to tire dust. Brake dust is probably worse than tire dust.

    • So if you see smog it's composed almost entirely of little microscopic bits of tires.

      I'm guessing you don't realize how much you're starting to sound like a right-winger with the science denial thing you've got going on here. Smog is mostly a result of ground-level O3, NOx emissions and vapors and particulate matter from incompletely combusted fuels. Tire particles are heavy and fall out of the air rather quickly.

  • by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Thursday February 06, 2025 @02:46PM (#65147691)

    Particulate pollution is apparently a huge problem in India so I'll use that as an example on sources I've seen on particulate matter pollution and possible easy to implement fixes. Because of the nature of the simplest and lowest cost fixes I expect that there will be many people not pleased with what I offer as fixes. I got these ideas on sources of particulate matter in India from a variety of sources, TV documentaries and news, talking to people from India, and items that have been featured on Slashdot before.

    In India is is common for crop chaff in fields to be burned, and this practice can create a lot of smoke over adjacent population centers. They do this because the roots and stalks are difficult to plow through with the traditional practice of plowing fields with beasts of burden. An easy fix is to encourage use of diesel tractors. In the USA it's fairly common to see fields plowed with 300 horsepower behemoths that cost something like a quarter million dollars. The small farms that are typical in India would likely be more suited to what we in the USA might call a "garden tractor" or even a "riding lawn mower" that has a 25 or maybe 50 hp engine. A quick search of the web tells me that such tractors cost a few thousand dollars, which might be quite an expenditure for farmers that are still farming with mules. The tractor though is a "durable good", so that cost could be spread out over time, expected to last potentially decades like a clothes dryer or furnace. Perhaps a government loan program or something can help these farmers modernize and clean up the air.

    This gets to particulates from engine exhaust, also a big problem in India. In the USA, EU, and certainly other jurisdictions on Earth, there's rules on engines having catalytic converters to burn up particulates created by the internal combustion engine. This is a kind of soot, the black smoke seen from "rolling coal". Catalytic converters are apparently quite effective in educing particulate matter in engine exhaust but they can get clogged up if the fuel has too much sulfur. ULSD, ultra-low-sulfur diesel, is a common fuel in places where catalytic converters are in use so it's not like this is some insoluble problem. The sulfur is a byproduct of sourcing fuel from petroleum, if the fuel is from Fischer-Tropsh synthesis and carbon sourced from biomass or CO2 extraction from the air then there's no sulfur, and no net CO2 emissions.

    A related issue is that in India people with not a lot of money to buy proper gasoline for their transportation will buy cooking kerosene instead and burn that. This is illegal but with the practice so pervasive enforcement is near impossible. Kerosene doesn't burn well in gasoline engines, at least not until it has run long enough to warm up. This means a lot of incomplete combustion with motorcycles and auto-rickshaws "rolling coal" down the streets. What is driving up the cost of gasoline over that of cooking kerosene is taxes, not anything inherent to the refining. Lower the taxes on gasoline and people won't be motivated to burn cooking kerosene in their vehicles.

    While kerosene fuel is common in India for cooking so is burning wood, chaff, dung, and perhaps other biomass. Burning biomass for fuel creates a lot of particulate matter, that is unless using a modern stove with a catalytic converter. Kerosene stoves tend to burn fairly clean because it is desirable for a cooking stove to be hot, hot enough that there's not the "rolling coal" like with a gasoline motorcycle burning kerosene. Electric stoves would be better than kerosene but there's a lot of rural India yet to get reliable electricity. Even in urban areas kerosene stoves remain common because the electric grid can be unreliable and/or the dwelling was equipped with a kerosene stove which makes an electric stove an added expense with no real gain to the homeowner, other than some de minimis reduction in air pollution. A fix could be finding ways to get catalytic stoves to people, providing cleaner formulations of kerosene, and long term set out a program of providing reliable electricity.

    If there's reliable electricity then electric vehicles become viable. Until then it's people with motorcycles going to shops to fill cans with kerosene to run their stoves, vehicles, and perhaps lanterns. A temporary fix could be PHEVs as they'd allow for plugging in for motive power as well as running on gasoline or whatever should the electric grid fail them. Perhaps the PHEV could act as a portable generator and/or battery pack to provide electric power for lights and cooking so there's less kerosene burned.

    Even in the USA, and other places with reliable electrical power, PHEVs would be a good halfway measure to lowering particulate matter as they'd allow all electric power for short commutes without compromising on long recharge times for the few times per year the driving exceeds 50 or 100 miles in a day. A PHEV could also serve as a portable generator or battery pack with wheels for when the normally reliable electric grid fails in that once-in-a-decade event that leaves people without utility power for an extended period, that would be better for clean air than portable generators, charcoal grills, or whatever people revert to in such situations as the PHEV should have a clean running engine with a catalytic converter.

    I know there's those that would rather see solar panels, windmills, and battery packs, but that's something that's been pushed on people for something like 50 years with little gains to show for it. Rather than continuing the insanity of doing the same things and expecting different results we try simpler and lower cost options that get us at least half way. We can do both at the same time, renewable and cleaner fossil fuel options, to get where we want to be. Don't let better be dismissed because perfect is just out of reach.

  • Did they make the candles out of old tires and axle grease?

  • by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Thursday February 06, 2025 @03:49PM (#65147877)

    The criticism I have of this study is it needlessly creates a confounder in the form of CO2 levels when it didn't need to. There is at least some evidence of similar short term effects due to elevated CO2 exposure before people become acclimatized to new environment.

    Would also be interesting to see what the long term effects are if any or if like CO2 the effect goes away after an acclimatization period.

  • I walk 1 km to and from work twice a day, I found that it really helps to activate my brain in the morning and after lunch. But I felt that the gains were less noticeable during winter, even though the effort of going outside is greater (the temperature felt outside was -33C here this morning).

    I can't be sure that this would explain the whole thing, but walking in an industrial area of town during winter is less about breathing fresh air, and more about inhaling the exhaust fumes of diesel truck and machine

Nothing succeeds like excess. -- Oscar Wilde

Working...