# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
教你几式应对环境空气污染

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
教你几式应对环境空气污染_哔哩哔哩_bilibili

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
关注不迷路，精彩持续放送，记得一键三连哦~, 视频播放量 329、弹幕量 0、点赞数 3、投硬币枚数 0、收藏人数 0、转发人数 1, 视频作者 江苏美购, 作者简介 穹顶之下，自由呼吸 每周135，中午11点，固定更新，相关视频：看看外国动画如何讲述空气污染，"智商税"？ 带你了解什么是真正的负氧离子，负氧离子对人体健康的作用，负氧离子能杀死冠状病毒吗？，为什么说负氧离子是慢性病的"克星"？，负氧离子对七大人群的益处，假如没有负离子，世界会怎样？，负氧离子是如何提高人体免疫的？，负氧离子有副作用？是真的吗？，空气负离子浓度的等级标准

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
工业污染指标准及工业污染排放比例是多少-法师兄

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
工业污染是指工业生产过程中所形成的废气、废水和固体排放物对对环境的污染。工业污染主要集中在少数几个行业。造纸、化工、钢铁、电力、食品、采掘、纺织等7个行业的废水排放量占总量的4／5。造纸和食品业的CO…

# data[].attributes.body
沈老师您检查一下

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microsoft Forms - Free tool to create online surveys, forms, polls, and quizzes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Use Microsoft Forms to easily create online surveys, forms, quizzes and questionnaires. AI powered, free survey tool from Microsoft.

# data[].attributes.body
科学家认为，两栖动物常见的壶菌病、空气污染和全球变暖，都是可能导致金蟾蜍灭绝的原因。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
RFI - 法国国际广播电台

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
在过去的十年中，科学家上虽然发现了不少新的物种，主要是昆虫类和微小生物。但是消失的动物也非常多，特别是较大型的动物。中国低碳网刊登报道指出，至少有十种动物在过去的十年中消失。人们常常说动物濒临灭绝，似乎还不会彻底消亡，但是这十种动物是真正从地球上灭绝了。在今天的环境与健康专题节目时间，就让我们来祭奠这些消失的动物吧！

1.金蟾蜍
金蟾蜍有时也称为蒙特沃尔蟾蜍或橙色蟾蜍，过去只分布于哥斯达黎加的蒙特沃德雾林生物保护区。金蟾蜍原本是一个常见物种，但自1989年以来便再没人见过它们的踪影。金蟾蜍的繁殖地众所周知，并备受关注：1988年，科学家发现了8只雄性和两只雌性金蟾蜍，而在1989年，仅发现了一只雄性金蟾蜍的踪迹。从此，科学家展开了大范围搜寻，但金蟾蜍却踪影全无，并于2007年8月被宣布从地球上消失。科学家认为，两栖动物常见的壶菌病、空气污染和全球变暖，都是可能导致金蟾蜍灭绝的原因。

2.白鳍豚
据记载，最后一次看到中国白鳍豚是在2002年，虽然这个珍稀物种只是被列入极度濒危物种名单，但科学家表示，白鳍豚其实可能已经灭绝。2006年，白鳍豚基金会的科学家在长江航行2000多英里（约合3218公里），配备了光学仪器和水下测音器等先进工具，但仍未能发现活白鳍豚。白鳍豚基金会就此发布报告宣布白鳍豚功能性灭绝。
功能性灭绝是指，该物种因其生存环境遭到破坏，数量非常稀少，以致在自然状态下基本丧失了维持繁殖的能力，甚至丧失了维持生存的能力。白鳍豚数量减少被归咎于过度捕捞、船运、栖息地丧失、污染等多方面原因。白鳍豚有"长江女神"的美誉，它的皮因为名贵，而被用来制造手套和手提包等。

3.夏威夷乌鸦
2002年，当最后两只已知夏威夷乌鸦不见踪迹后，该物种就被列入"野外灭绝"物种名单。当地还有一些被圈养的夏威夷乌鸦，1993年至1999年，超过40只在人工繁殖项目中孵化，它们被释放到管理不严的栖息地，进行密切观测，由于数量急剧下降，这种活动在1999年停止实施。夏威夷酝酿实施回归引种计划，不过，这种计划要想奏效，大约需要75只夏威夷乌鸦。科学家尚未完全揭开夏威夷乌鸦灭绝之谜，但他们认为像禽疟这样的传染病可能是夏威夷乌鸦灭绝的罪魁祸首。

比利牛斯山羊是西班牙山羊已经灭绝的两个亚种之一。这个物种曾经数量众多，广泛分布于西班牙和法国，20世纪初期，数量急剧下降，最后不到100只。2000年1月6日，世界上已知最后一只比利牛斯山羊（称为"西莉亚"的母羊）被发现死于西班牙北部，这种野山羊被正式宣布绝种。
科学家从"西莉亚"的耳朵中提取了皮肤细胞，保存在液氮中，并在2009年成功克隆出一只比利牛斯山羊，令其成为世界上第一个通过克隆又复活的物种。但是，由于肺功能衰弱，它仅存活了7分钟。导致比利牛斯山羊灭绝的原因仍是一个谜，科学家提供了各种各样的说法，包括偷猎、疾病和无力与其他物种争夺食物。

5.斯皮克斯金刚鹦鹉
虽然人工饲养的斯皮克斯金刚鹦鹉（Spix'smacaw）数量仍达到71只，但最后一个已知野生个体在2000年消失，而野外再未发现过斯皮克斯金刚鹦鹉。它已被列入"极度濒危"物种名单，之所以不是"野外灭绝"物种名单，是因为科学家没有对这个物种所有潜在栖息地进行彻底摸查。

斯皮克斯金刚鹦鹉分布于巴西北部，1987年，3只野生个体被人捉到后卖出。其中，一只雄性个体在1990年被发现，与人工饲养的一只雌性个体组成家庭。不幸的是，在这只雌性斯皮克斯金刚鹦鹉被放到野外后，它撞上了电线，一命呜呼。造成斯皮克斯金刚鹦鹉几乎绝种的原因，主要是猎杀和诱捕、栖息地遭破坏以及引入非洲化蜜蜂（被称为"杀人蜂"）。

6.利物浦鸽
利物浦鸽（Liverpoolpigeon）是一种来源不明的已灭绝鸟类，虽然有些科研人员认为塔希提岛上可能仍存在它们的踪迹。现存唯一一只利物浦鸽栖居于默西塞德郡博物馆，科学家表示这种鸽子可能在欧洲人在太平洋开始探险以前便濒临灭绝。自然保护国际联盟在2008年对利物浦鸽进行了评估，随后宣布它已灭绝，而原因尚不得而知。

西非黑犀牛是黑犀牛中最珍稀的亚种，已经被列入"极度濒危"物种名单，研究人员担心它可能已经彻底灭绝。西非黑犀牛曾广泛分布在非洲中部大草原，由于偷猎活动，近年来数量开始下降。1980年，这一珍稀物种总数仍有数百头，但到2000年，估计只剩下10头。科学家曾对西非黑犀牛在喀麦隆北部的最后一块栖息地进行过调查，遗憾的是，并没有发现野生西非黑犀牛的踪迹，不过寻找工作仍在继续。据目前掌握的情况，世界上不存在人工繁殖西非黑犀牛项目。

8.黑脸蜜旋木雀
黑脸蜜旋木雀亦称毛岛蜜雀，是美国夏威夷毛伊岛上的特有物种，已被列入"极度濒危/可能灭绝"物种名单。在1998年发现的三只黑脸蜜旋木雀中，一只圈养的个体在2004年死亡，其余两只自此再没有出现过。科学家表示，黑脸蜜旋木雀可能已经绝种，但要证实这一点，需要对潜在栖息地进行全面摸查。即便有一些生存下来，数量一定极少。黑脸蜜旋木雀数量减少的主要原因是栖息地遭到破坏及携带疾病的蚊子的快速传播。

9.德氏小鸊鷉
德氏小鸊鷉（Alaotragrebe）在2010年被宣布灭绝，虽然这个物种可能在之前几年便已从地球上消失。科学家之所以迟迟不愿将德氏小鸊鷉列入灭绝物种名单，是因为它们栖息于马达加斯加岛偏远的阿劳特拉湖（LakeAlaotra）。科学家分别在1989年、2004年和2009年对该地区进行了全面摸查，但没有找到德氏小鸊鷉的踪迹，最后一次看到这种鸟类个体的踪影还是在1982年。由于栖息地遭到破坏，本就不多的个体开始与个头更小的交配，产生杂交物种，导致德氏小鸊鷉的数量在20世纪开始下降。鉴于德氏小鸊鷉活动范围和活动能力受限，科学家宣布它已经灭绝，今天，仅有一张照片捕捉到野生德氏小鸊鷉的画面。

霍尔德里奇蟾蜍（Holdridge's toad）是哥斯达黎加雨林地区的特有物种，在2008年10月被宣布灭绝，因为自1986年以来，就没有人再看到霍尔德里奇蟾蜍的踪影。2000年至2007年间，科学家进行了定期摸查和全面搜寻，但均无功而返。科学家认为，这种蟾蜍数量急剧减少并最终灭绝的主要原因是，两栖动物常见的壶菌病和全球变暖的影响。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
环境与发展 - 十年内从地球上消失的十种动物

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
在过去的十年中，科学家上虽然发现了不少新的物种，主要是昆虫类和微小生物。但是消失的动物也非常多，特别是较大型的动物。中国低碳网刊登报道指出，至少有十种动物在过去的十年中消失。人们常常说动物濒临灭绝，似乎还不会彻底消亡，但是这十种动物是真正从地球上灭绝了。在今天的环境与健康专题节目时间，就让我们来祭奠这些消失的动物吧！

# data[].attributes.body
全球变暖将会导致地球上的动植物大量灭绝。尽管人类可能最终逃过这一劫，但地球上有一半的物种将会消亡。例如：由于大气中二氧化碳排放量急剧上升，使桉树叶变质，考拉生存受到威胁。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2010生物多样性国际年｜消失的生物，消失的乐园

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
联合国大会第61/203号决议宣布2010年为国际年。这一年适逢生物多样性公约各缔约方和各国国家元首和政府首脑在2002年约翰内斯堡可持续发展世界首脑会议上通过的2010年生物多样性目标。

# data[].attributes.body
Lika line 2 vip ( 总结 ）

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
什么是森林野火，它们是怎样开始的，我们又该如何预防？

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
什么是森林野火，它们是怎样开始的，我们又该如何预防？

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
什么是森林野火，它们是怎样开始的，我们又该如何预防？...|sina.cn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
病情分析：一氧化碳中毒是因为人体吸入了过量的一氧化碳气体，一般在防护不周或通风不良时发生。在我国北方地区，急性一氧化碳中毒多是因为燃气、热水器使用不当，或烧煤取暖时煤炭燃烧不充分造成。

一氧化碳中毒的实质病理改变，是一氧化碳与血红蛋白结合形成碳氧血红蛋白，一氧化碳与血红蛋白的亲和力，比氧气与血红蛋白的亲和力大300倍。碳氧血红蛋白没有携带氧气的能力，同时影响已经存在的氧合血红蛋白解离，阻碍氧气的释放和传递，造成低氧血症，引起组织缺氧。一氧化碳还可以损害线粒体功能，抑制组织内呼吸，对全身组织均有毒性作用。在人体各个器官当中，脑和心脏对缺氧最为敏感，一旦一氧化碳中毒发生，脑损伤往往很重，患者多发生脑细胞水肿、脑循环障碍，可发生昏迷，并且在昏迷苏醒后还可能发生一氧化碳中毒迟发性脑病，心肌缺氧后则体现为各种心肌损害和各类心律失常。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
来自郭峰医生的专业解答，快打开看看是否又获得了新的知识点～

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
一氧化碳的介绍_腾讯视频

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
团妞带你涨知识 AQI是什么？戳视频了解。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
团妞带你涨知识 AQI是什么？戳视频了解。,文化,广告设计,好看视频

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
团妞带你涨知识 AQI是什么？戳视频了解。,本视频由提供,3574次播放,好看视频是由百度团队打造的集内涵和颜值于一身的专业短视频聚合平台

# data[].attributes.body
拍摄身边的空气污染的视频或照片

最后展示总结视频

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
英国是 的发祥地， 的发明与推广推动了采煤业和制造业，煤烟造成了"可以与日全食相比的黑暗"。这种空气污染在1952年的" "中达到巅峰。这一年的12月5日，天气异常寒冷，伦敦居民燃起煤炉，大量粉尘颗粒聚集在伦敦上空无法散去，使市中心一度连续48小时 不足50米。更严重的是，约1.2万人因这次空气污染事件吸入污染物而死亡，患病的人更是不计其数。

1952年后，英国人开始反思空气污染造成的苦果。1956年， 通过了世界上第一部空气污染防治法案《清洁空气法》。法律规定在伦敦城内的电厂都必须关闭，只能在大伦敦区重建。要求工业企业建造高大的烟囱，加强疏散大气污染物。还包括要求大规模改造城市居民的传统炉灶，减少煤炭用量，逐步实现居民生活天然气化；冬季采取 。

1968年以后，英国又出台了一系列的空气污染防控法案，这些法案针对各种废气排放进行了严格约束，并制定了明确的处罚措施，有效减少了烟尘和颗粒物。

早在1851年， 和辛辛那提市就开始了进行保护空气质量的立法尝试。就 层次的立法而言，美国从1955年的《空气污染控制法》到1963年的《清洁空气法》，1967年的《空气质量控制法》，再到1970年的《清洁空气法》以及后来的1977年修正案、1990年修正案等多次修正而逐步完善，建立起来了一个完整的法律规范体系。经过半个世纪的不断修改完善，美国的清洁空气法确立了一系列行之有效的原则。

美国的标准分级制度是怎样的？"这些在《清洁空气法》中都有相应规定。《清洁空气法》要求，应根据保护对象制定基准 的 。"据武雪芳介绍，美国的环境空气质量标准分为两级，一级标准(Primarystandards)是为了保护公众健康，包括保护哮喘患者、儿童和老人等敏感人群的健康；二级标准(Secondarystandards)是为了保护社会物质财富，包括对能见度以及动物、作物、植被和建筑物等保护。

中国早在1979年就出台了《 》。2008年，有关方面曾召集专家探讨奥运会空气质量对策。当时有专家提议，可以把美国的《清洁空气法》翻译过来，作为制定政策的参考。但由于种种原因没有实现。

2013年11月，随着" "的对外公布，加快环保立法已经提速。作为大气治理的基本法，制定于1987年的《大气污染防治法》已经启动第三次修改，被列入《国务院2013年立法工作计划》。

该次《大气污染防治法》的修法被要求彻底修改，属于大修大改，修法思路也将由过去的就污染谈污染，变为从改善经济结构和转变 的高度来谈大气污染治理，从而制定出一部更为有效的大气污染防治法。而修改后法案的名字，很可能采用新的命名--《清洁空气法》。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
《清洁空气法》是欧美国家针对造成大气污染的排放行为而制定的法律。中国曾希望借鉴美国《清洁空气法》制定政策，但由于种种原因没有实现。2013年11月，有媒体报道称，制定于1987年的《大气污染防治法》将要进行彻底的修改，修改过后很可能改名为《清洁空气法》。

# data[].attributes.headline
空气污染对鸟类的多样性是否会产生影响？

# data[].attributes.subject
空气污染对鸟类的多样性是否会产生影响？

# data[].attributes.headline
空气污染对鸟类本身是否有影响，例如呼吸系统？

# data[].attributes.subject
空气污染对鸟类本身是否有影响，例如呼吸系统？

# data[].attributes.body
-空气污染的来源（Bright）导图

-采访的问题（每个人），Jayden确认其他的采访对象-大伯、作文老师

-资料上传、阅读padlet所有内容

1. Continue to help students sort out secondary data and summarize the information they've collected;
2. Discuss the significance of primary sources (interviews/survey);

3. Brainstorm interview/questionnaire questions.

# data[].attributes.headline
空气污染会对鸟类产生什么影响？

# data[].attributes.subject
空气污染会对鸟类产生什么影响？

# data[].attributes.body
空气污染对鸟类的影响——汞

报道中强调人类对空气污染和鸟类的研究比较全面了，是否可以搜集更多关于鸟类的相关报道？

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
多少年来，鸣禽一直被用来做为有害空气的报警信号。

20世纪，工人们会把笼子里的金丝雀带到煤矿深处，做为活生生的一氧化碳探测器。直到今天，习语"煤矿里的金丝雀"仍然意味着对人类即将面临危险的警告。

但这句格言的另一方面很少被考虑：危害人类健康的恶劣空气是否也影响鸟类？

两年前，发表在《科学》杂志上的一项里程碑式的研究表明，自1970年以来，北美繁殖鸟类数量惊人地减少了近30亿只。每一个生物群落中的鸟类数量都在下降，有300多个物种遭受种群损失。但这项研究并没有研究是什么导致了这种下降。肯·罗森博格是康奈尔大学鸟类实验室的自然保护科学家，他和他的合作者认为鸟类的损失是由许多重叠的原因造成的，其中栖息地丧失是最主要的原因。

去年夏天，罗森博格在线上参加了一场北美鸟类学视频会议，内容是探讨关于鸟类血液样本中汞含量增加的问题。他由此开始思考：空气污染在鸟类数量下降中起到了什么作用？

威斯康星大学史蒂芬斯分校野生动物生态学助理教授玛丽·珀金斯在会议上介绍了她对7种鸣禽羽毛中汞含量的研究。她发现，在她研究的7种鸟类中，有6种的汞含量随着时间的推移而增加，2000年后采集的样本显示，汞含量是历史样本的2~17倍。据珀金斯说，空气污染是汞污染的"主要来源"。血液中汞含量增长最大的是锈色黑鹂(Euphagus carolinus)，这一物种自20世纪60年代以来已经减少了90%。

原图制作: Jillian Ditner

但引起罗森博格注意的是红眼绿鹃，因为它是研究中唯一没有出现血液中汞含量增加的物种。

他说："在我们的大规模研究中，这种鸣禽是为数不多的例外，它们的数量是在增加，而不是在减少。这确实让我们联想到，也许汞含量和物种数量整体下降有一定内在关系。"

最近发表的另一项研究在空气污染和鸟类之间找到了更直接的联系，显示旨在使人类空气更清洁的政府法规同样也帮助了鸟类。

康奈尔实验室鸟类种群研究中心高级主任阿曼达·罗德瓦尔德是去年12月公布的这项研究的合著者，该研究表明《清洁空气法》帮助拯救了15亿只鸟类的生命。他说："重要的是这进一步表明，对鸟类有益的东西对人类有益。"

罗德瓦尔德认为，空气污染与鸟类之间的联系是一个成熟的研究领域，值得更多的关注，特别是随着新一届总统的上台，是时候收集尽可能多的证据来支持清洁空气政策了。

罗德瓦尔德说："当我们控制空气污染时，我们实际上将获得多重收益，不仅对人类健康，而且对鸟类和自然保护也有好处。"。

作为一种神经毒素，汞会伤害大脑和神经系统。对人类来说，接触汞会导致智商下降和行为障碍问题。

汞主要通过两种方式进入水体：发电厂和工厂废水直接排放到河流和溪流，以及发电厂和采矿工业的空气排放。至于空气中的汞污染，据估计，全球每年有2220吨的空气排放物被风吹过数千英里甚至跨过海洋，然后沉积在岩石、土壤和地表水上。这意味着，即使看似孤立的生态系统没有任何附近的污染源，也可能存在严重的汞污染。

一旦汞进入湖泊和河流，细菌就会将其转化为一种毒性更大的物质--甲基汞，这种甲基汞很难被生物处理或去除。甲基汞粘附在浮游生物上，这些浮游生物被鱼类或昆虫吃掉，然后又被更大的鱼类和昆虫吃掉，直到最后被人类或其他动物吃掉。每一个捕食者不仅吞食了它的猎物，还吞食了猎物所消耗的汞。

这种神经毒素的生物放大过程是孕妇被警告不要吃太多食肉性鱼类（如旗鱼）的原因之一。由于鱼类是人类饮食中最大的汞源，早期关于鸟类接触汞的研究也同样集中在食鱼动物或食鱼鸟类身上。研究表明，血液中汞含量高的潜鸟可能无法正常孵化它们的卵。

"在过去的几十年里，这一直被认为是涉及鱼类的事情，"生物多样性研究所汞研究联合主任大卫·埃弗斯说。

20年前，埃弗斯开始研究潜鸟身上的汞。他在马萨诸塞州一个被汞严重污染的地方进行环境评估时"有了一个发现"。他的团队负责在现场捕捉白腹鱼狗(Ceryle alcyon)，以检测它们的血液，他们认为食鱼的鱼狗将是环境中汞污染的一个有效指标。但是，当雾网意外地捕捉到一些红翅黑鹂(Agelaius phoeniceus)时，埃弗斯的团队也决定采集它们的血液样本。

结果发现，红翅黑鹂体内的汞含量是鱼狗的5~10倍。

红翅黑鹂 摄影/刘建国

从那时起，埃弗斯的研究发现，汞对食虫鸟类的影响与食鱼鸟类一样大，甚至更多。鸣禽吃以前吃过这种化合物的昆虫，因为它们的身体通常比吃鱼的鸟小，新陈代谢也比吃鱼的鸟高，所以相对于它们的体重，鸣禽倾向于吃更多的食物。

去年秋天，埃弗斯担任了一期《生态毒理学》的编辑，专门研究汞和鸟类。特刊发表了15项新的研究，其中包括珀金斯的研究，他们共同发现至少58种迁徙鸣禽物种已经证明受到了汞的影响。负面影响包括导航、飞行和耐力，所有这些反过来都可能损害鸟类的繁殖能力。

埃弗斯确信，汞对许多鸟类物种的种群水平都有影响，不仅在北美，而且在全世界。

其中一个物种是卡罗苇鹪鹩(Thryothorus ludovicianus)，一项研究发现，汞对它们繁殖的各个方面都有影响，从产蛋的数量、雌鸟正确孵化的能力，到孵化出的蛋的数量，再到幼鸟从巢中成功羽化的过程。食物链是罪魁祸首，特别是卡罗苇鹪鹩通常会吃很多蜘蛛

卡罗苇鹪鹩 摄影/刘建国

"蜘蛛吃蜘蛛，蜘蛛吃蜻蜓，蜻蜓吃其他虫子，"埃弗斯说。"只要你吃了蜘蛛，你就吃掉了蜘蛛吃的所有东西所含的汞。汞会在食物链中被生物放大。"

吃水生虫子的湿地鸣禽面临更大的风险，因为水中的汞会转化为甲基汞。水位的波动可以加速这种转换过程，因此生活在潮汐区的鸟类可能更多地暴露在污染之中。在缅因州的一个湿地进行的一项研究发现，两种正在衰退的湿地物种尖尾沙鹀(Ammodramus caudacutus)和尼尔森沙鹀(Ammodramus nelsoni)的血液中汞含量很高。

尖尾沙鹀 摄影/Evan Lipton

目前尖尾沙鹀的种群数量正在急剧下降，自20世纪90年代以来，其数量减少了75%。海平面上升和巢穴被洪水冲毁被认为是它们数量下降的主要原因。但缅因州的研究显示了另一个可能的驱动因素，因为尖尾沙鹀血液中的汞含量高于尼尔森沙鹀。

埃弗斯说，他认为汞可能是导致尖尾沙鹀数量下降的主要原因，并指出尖尾沙鹀也倾向于比尼尔森沙鹀吃更大的蜘蛛。

红眼绿鹃(Vireo gilvus)是另一种可能为汞和鸟类之间的联系提供线索的物种。作为一种山地物种，红眼绿鹃一般不会在汞可能转化为甲基汞的潮湿地区觅食。这可以解释为什么珀金斯分析的红眼绿鹃样本没有显示出汞含量的增加，也许还可以解释为什么这种鸟的数量没有下降。

"它们可能吃更多的植物，更少的昆虫，并且它们可能只是在食物链中不含汞的地区觅食，"她解释说。

红眼绿鹃 摄影/Ryan Schain
这已经发生在北达科他州东部的凯利·斯劳国家野生动物保护区，本笃会学院生物学教授弗吉尼亚·温德对此进行了为期10年的研究。她在为博士学位进行研究时，偶然发现保护区的汞含量很高，研究的重点正是尼尔森沙鹀体内的汞浓度。

在发现北达科他州红河流域的沙鹀比其他地方的沙鹀汞含量更高后，温德来到保护区进行调查。她发现了一个污染热点，那里繁殖的沙鹀血液中的汞含量是加拿大安大略省和北达科他州其他地方繁殖的沙鹀的四到五倍。

温德回忆道："我不知道自己怎么会跌跌撞撞地进入到了汞含量高的地区。"她在一篇论文中发表了她的发现，最终引起了保护区野生动物生物学家马克·费舍尔的注意，他想知道保护区的水资源管理制度是否发挥到了作用。

凯利·斯劳保护区位于北达科他州格兰德福克斯西北几英里处，有数千英亩的湿地，并有一条小溪从中穿过。自20世纪90年代以来，保护区工作人员在春季、夏季和秋季堵住了这条溪流，为雀鸟和水禽创造了繁殖栖息地。这些池塘最多可容纳两米深的水长达数月。

费舍尔说："但从来没有人想过汞的含量会是这样，竟然可能是我们导致了甲基汞的暴增，而这是任何人都没有注意到的。"当然，也不应该责怪保护区的工作人员：没有人直接将汞沉积到保护区或保护区的上游。相反，汞是从遥远的烟囱进入大气层的。但是保护区的水管理方式为厌氧细菌创造了最佳条件（死水池塘），而厌氧细菌将汞转化成为毒性更强的甲基汞。

保护区的工作人员被温德的研究结果吓坏了。他们决定看看让更多的水流过这个系统是否有助于防止从天上掉下来的汞在筑坝的水池里的积水中甲基化。

"我们不想提供有毒的栖息地，"费舍尔说。

实验成功了，2017年保护区永久性地改变了水管理制度。现在，工作人员只需将溪流堵上足够长的时间，就可以形成15~30厘米深的浅水池，在流出之前，这些水池只能停留几周。这种做法大大降低了湿地中的甲基汞水平和鸟类血液中的汞水平。

温德的最新研究发现，与水流受限的湿地鸟类相比，生活在水流自由的湿地中的鸣禽和鸭子样本的汞浓度分别低67%和49%。这些发现对费舍尔来说是一个值得欢迎的变化。

不幸的是，鸟类中的汞污染并不总是那么简单。

纽约州立大学普赖斯学院环境研究助理教授奥尔森·杰克逊一直在研究缅因州阿卡迪亚国家公园的鸣禽如何通过食物接触到汞。

她说："这对公园管理者来说很难，因为他们在境内尽一切努力阻止汞进入，但他们无法阻止汞从空中进入。"

杰克逊一直在研究国家公园不同湿地和溪流中新出现的水生昆虫（如蜉蝣和石蝇）的汞含量。尽管她尚未发表研究报告，杰克逊认为，昆虫栖息地质量的差异可能会影响鸣禽的汞暴露水平。

她说："一个良好的环境能够产生新出现的水生昆虫，这与有多少昆虫能从水中出来供鸟类食用有关，而这反过来又会影响它们的汞暴露量。"换言之，阿卡迪亚的湿地栖息地能够产生大量昆虫供鸟类食用，但这反过来可能会导致鸟类中汞中毒水平更高。

这个发现将带来一个棘手的难题，因为产生大量昆虫的湿地通常被认为是健康的栖息地。正如杰克逊所说："你不能告诉人们，你想要的是一个不会产生新的昆虫的水体，这太疯狂了。"

相反，她希望她的工作能够为寻求监管和限制汞污染的决策者提供帮助："我们能提供的信息越多，我们就越能更好地解释为什么我们应该保护环境，应该如何保护环境，保护空气的清洁，水体的清洁。

根据华盛顿大学定量生态学家奥利维亚·桑德福的说法，保持空气净化的多个政策渠道将以多种方式为所有生物提供回报。

桑德福说："我们知道人类健康受到这些污染物的影响，所以如果我们能够提高空气质量，这将是一个双赢的结果，因为我们将改善所有呼吸空气的动物的空气质量。"

"让我们更安全的政策也让鸟类更加安全。"

本文来源：观鸟者

刘建国编译整理自Cornell Lab网站

原文作者: Ariel Wittenberg

特别声明：以上内容(如有图片或视频亦包括在内)为自媒体平台"网易号"用户上传并发布，本平台仅提供信息存储服务。

Notice: The content above (including the pictures and videos if any) is uploaded and posted by a user of NetEase Hao, which is a social media platform and only provides information storage services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
空气污染会对鸟类产生什么影响？

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
空气污染会对鸟类产生什么影响？,鸟类,野生动物,绿鹃,鸣禽

# data[].attributes.headline
什么时候更容易在动物园见到猴子打架？空气污染的时候

# data[].attributes.subject
什么时候更容易在动物园见到猴子打架？空气污染的时候

# data[].attributes.body
非常有意思的一篇新闻报道！

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
空气污染对于人类的伤害，研究已经很多了。但对动物来说，空气污染会产生什么样的影响呢？

怀着这样的疑问，我们研究组做了些关于信鸽和猕猴的研究。

空气污染会如何影响动物？| Pixabay

信鸽，归心似箭

2016年，我们研究了信鸽在空气污染条件下的归巢行为，试图探究在个体层次，动物会采取哪种策略来适应污染的大气环境。

我们选择华北地区的信鸽作为研究对象，出于以下几个原因：

其一，信鸽的导航机制比较明确，基本上可以认为是两步走，以太阳和地磁为主的定向，和以嗅觉和视觉为主的定位。传统上常常被忽略的嗅觉，其实在信鸽导航机制中起到至关重要的作用。大量的研究显示，嗅觉导航在鸟类尤其是信鸽归巢过程中可能发挥了最主要的作用。

第二，中国的赛鸽运动相当发达，仅在华北地区，每年释放的信鸽数量就多达几百万。这就使鸟类群体飞行数据的收集成为可能。这个量级的数据，是野生鸟类研究无法获取的。

第三，选择华北，是因为这个区域是我国空气污染最为严重的地区。赛鸽比赛行程一旦确定，通常而言，不会因为空气污染而取消比赛，这样就使空气质量指数（Air Quality Index, AQI）有了足够的变化范围。

经过筛选，我们保留了415场赛鸽比赛的数据，将整场比赛完赛的赛鸽平均成绩作为因变量，建立了包括比赛距离、顺逆风、温度、AQI等因素在内的多元回归模型，结果发现，随着AQI的增加（空气污染程度的加剧），信鸽加快了归巢速度。在控制了其他变量后，AQI每升高50，归巢速度就提升约2.23%。

信鸽归巢速率与空气质量指数的关系 | Li et al. 2016

信鸽归巢速度加快，可以用两个假说来解释--其一是导航机制假说，其二是归巢动机假说。

导航机制假说认为，空气污染使得信鸽更容易找路了，嗅觉导航在信鸽归巢中起到非常重要的作用，而污染的空气中，可能会有潜在的强化嗅觉导航的化学信号可供信鸽归巢所用。

归巢动机假说则主要认为，信鸽是被空气污染"吓回家"的，污染的空气会增加信鸽的风险感以及归巢动机，导致信鸽快速地逃离污染环境。

两种假说都能解释"信鸽更快回家"，区别在哪里呢？如果信鸽是因为空气污染而更方便找路了，那么不但飞回家速度会变快，整体的归巢率也应该会增加--毕竟迷路的信鸽变少了。

而如果信鸽是被空气污染给吓到了，因为害怕而想更早回家，那么归巢率就不会上升。嗅觉导航地图没得到加强，信鸽即使早点回家的动机再强，也是白搭。

我们认为，归巢动机假说可能是主要机制，也就是污染环境下风险感的增加，是刺激信鸽加速回巢的主因。

但嗅觉强化假说也有一定的可能，这是因为，尽管鸟类依赖于嗅觉信号的间接证据很多，但至今没有直接证据，甚至连潜在的嗅觉信号是什么都没有明确的说法。

如果鸟类依赖于嗅觉地图，那么这种化学信号一定是可以天然产生的，按照一定梯度广泛分布的，甚至是具有一定气味的。常见的某些空气污染物，恰恰是能够满足这些要求的。

循着这些想法，我们重新分析了华北地区信鸽比赛的归巢率。结果发现，空气污染物中的臭氧（O3），二氧化氮（NO2）浓度升高时，信鸽的归巢率会显著提高。

臭氧和二氧化氮的影响虽然显著，但贡献率很低。这也很容易理解，因为嗅觉地图肯定是多种信号相互协调构成，即便上述两种污染物真的发挥作用，肯定也只是很小的一部分。

信鸽比赛 | 中国信鸽协会

之前的数据是整场比赛所有信鸽的平均成绩，是建立在群体水平上的分析。今年年初，为了验证是否信鸽在个体水平上也是这种表现，我们又以我国西南地区近300只信鸽的多次参赛数据，按照不同的污染物建立模型，也发现了同样的结果，信鸽在臭氧和二氧化氮浓度提高时，归巢速度会显著提高。

总而言之，空气污染时，信鸽回家都飞得更快些。

猕猴，打成一片

完成信鸽的工作后，我们转向了南京红山森林动物园的大约90只猕猴。

信鸽这个研究，反映的是空气污染对个体的影响。猕猴这个研究，我们想研究的是空气污染对社群的影响。社群里个体的互动有很多种，最典型的就是社群冲突。

那么，空气污染会不会加剧猕猴的社群冲突，导致群体的打斗增加呢？

猕猴 | 南京市红山森林动物园

利用红外视频监测系统，我们收集了整群猕猴一年的社群冲突数据，以天为单位，建立了包括游客数量、温度、天气以及AQI等环境因素在内的猕猴社群冲突多元回归模型。

由于我国2013年开始大力气整治空气污染，在猕猴研究工作进行的2017~2018年，南京的空气质量非常好，整年下来空气质量处于优或者良的达到了302天，AQI最高为307，但社群冲突模型的分析结果仍然符合我们的预期。随着AQI的增加，猕猴的社群冲突，也就是打斗行为的确增加了，AQI的贡献率达到了0.039，虽然不大，但至少说明，空气污染可能会激化猕猴群体的内部矛盾，导致社群冲突增加。

其他导致冲突增加的因素也很有意思，比如温度对于冲突的贡献率达到了0.145，显著高于AQI，而且温度与猕猴社群的打斗呈现非线性关系。随着温度的升高，猕猴的社群冲突先增加再降低，在25~29摄氏度时，猕猴的冲突最激烈，也就是说天气太冷了或者太热了，猴子也不愿意打斗。

这样的结果其实和人类社会非常接近，很多研究都显示，高温会显著增加不发达国家发生战乱的可能性。

温度和AQI对南京红山森林动物园猕猴社群冲突的影响

| Xu et al. 2021

此外，游客的数量及参观行为，也会显著影响猕猴的社群冲突，这很可能是因为游客的不文明行为，比如投喂或者吵闹，激化了猕猴的群内矛盾。

马拉松成绩下降，

交通事故增加......

相对于动物，空气污染对于人类行为的影响研究要多得多，也要细得多。

空气污染会影响到人的心理和行为。我们收集了包括北京、上海、南京、杭州、武汉等全国13个城市的两千多份大学生调查问卷，探究空气污染和人的心理及行为表现的关系。结果表明，我国大学生中有接近90%的人会感受到空气污染对生理和健康的影响，这些影响包括常见的咳嗽、过敏、呼吸急促等，有超过一半的人在空气污染时心理和行为会受到影响，包括感到焦虑、烦躁或伤心，减少户外运动，以及快速逃离污染环境的意愿等，而在巴基斯坦开展的类似的一项研究中，上述比例也都过了70%。

空气污染会影响到体育比赛的成绩，尤其是对一些接近体能极限的运动，比如马拉松。我们收集了从2014到2018年中国一共4740名运动员的9053份比赛成绩，数据清洗后筛选出266名至少参加过五次马拉松比赛的运动员(132名女性和134名男性)。通过线性混合模型分析了六种污染物（PM2.5，PM10，SO2，NO2，CO，O3）对马拉松运动员成绩的影响。

结果显示，男性马拉松运动员的成绩受到二氧化硫（SO2）和臭氧（O3）的影响，而女性运动员的成绩则受到SO2、O3、PM10和PM2.5的影响。

控制了其他变量后，随着臭氧和二氧化硫的浓度升高，男女运动员的完赛时长都明显增加。

普通大众更关心的细颗粒物污染物--PM10和PM2.5，我们的研究只发现对女性运动员的影响显著。

空气污染可能也会影响到司机的驾驶行为及交通事故发生率。我们以某个隔离的小岛为例，连续收集了2014~2017年的交通事故数据以及相应的环境参数。结果发现，PM10和PM2.5从国家标准一级浓度增加到二级浓度时,交通事故分别增加了近35%和11.1%。

空气污染可能是影响驾驶员生理、心理和认知功能的一个初始因素，进而在更复杂的维度上影响司机的驾驶行为，从而引起交通事故。当然，这一发现还只是相关性研究，并不足以得出空气污染导致日交通事故增加的因果结论，需要进一步研究探索明确的心理和生理影响途径。

空气污染甚至会影响到社会纠纷及违法犯罪。最近美国国家经济调查局资助哈佛大学和加州大学戴维斯分校的两名学者，分析了美国东部大都市芝加哥十余年的城市犯罪数据，并在控制其他变量的情况下，发现处于空气污染下风口的区域，暴力犯罪上升了2.2%，但财产犯罪并未受到影响。同期来自英国劳动经济研究所在伦敦等地开展的研究，也得到了类似的结论，AQI每上升10，犯罪率就提升0.9%，这意味着伦敦污染最严重的日子（AQI 103.6）里，其犯罪率较污染最轻的日子（AQI 9.3）里要高8.4%。而导致这一结果的原因，可能在于空气污染可以通过生理学和心理学两条途径影响到人的行为，进而影响到社会关系及违法犯罪。

除此之外，还有研究发现，空气污染甚至与股票收益之间存在负相关。原因可能在于空气污染导致了负面情绪，而负面情绪带来了不利的经济后果。所以，如果想在股市里多赚钱，不要在雾霾天交易，可能是个不错的策略！

空气污染的多层影响

尽管仍旧存在诸多争议，但"人类世"的到来已经得到越来越多科学家的认可。人类已经成为地球上最具影响力的物种，人类的改造力量已经导致地球发生了极大的变化，这些变化包括全球变暖，陆地、空域、水体的污染，以及伴随着生境恶化而来的生物多样性丧失。

从我个人粗浅的理解，污染对动物的影响，至少包含了四个层次--细胞和生理层次、个体层次、社群层次以及种群层次。

在生理层次，雾霾中含有大量的细颗粒物以及附着的化学污染物，这会严重影响动物的生理机能及生理健康。比如，这些污染物会导致动物心肺功能减弱，造成严重的呼吸障碍；在人类中甚至会导致心脑血管疾病甚至癌症发病率的大幅提升。

在个体行为层次，雾霾污染可能会导致动物的逃避反应，比如，雾霾污染严重，动物可能和人类一样，会降低户外活动时间，或者想方设法逃离雾霾污染的环境。

在社群层次，雾霾污染可能会引起个体的生理及心理异常，进而增加了个体的攻击行为，引起社群秩序紊乱。

雾霾污染甚至在动物种群层次上，也会存在影响，当然这种评估非常困难，因为这需要大尺度上的时空监测。比如，依赖视觉导航的迁徙鸟类，如果在迁徙途中遭遇持续的、严重的雾霾污染，它们可能会迷失方向，改变迁徙路线，或者推迟迁徙时间。而这期间，一旦发生极端的降温降雨过程，就会导致大批量的野鸟死亡，这种死亡的量级，是在迁徙的种群基础上，可能是几百、几千只，也可能是几万只。

空气污染的这些效应，需要得到更多的研究与关注。

2013年起，我国花大力气开展空气污染治理以及空气污染相关的健康影响研究。

自从我国采取了降低排放的严格措施后，与2014年相比，2018年的六大空气污染物均有15%以上的下降。

同呼吸，共命运。治理空气污染，对人，对动物，对我们赖以生存的环境，都会带来深远的好处。

参考文献

1. Herrnstadt Evan, Muehlegger Erich. 2015. Air pollution and criminal activity: evidence from Chicago microdata. NBER Report No. 21787.

2. Hsiang, S. M., Meng, K. C., Cane, M. A. 2011. Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate. Nature, 476, 438-441.

3. Li Zhong-qiu, Courchamp Franck, Blumstein Daniel. 2016. Pigeons home faster through polluted air. Scientific Reports. 6, 18989.

4. Malvina Bondy, Sefi Roth, Lutz Sager. 2018. Crime is in the Air: The Contemporaneous Relationship between Air Pollution and Crime. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 11492.

5. Rajper Sohail, Ullah Sana, Li Zhong-qiu. 2018. Exposure to air pollution and self-reported effects on Chinese students: A case study of 13 megacities. Plos One. 13(3), 194364.

6. Ullah Sana, Ullah Naeem, Rajper Sohail Ahmed, Ahmad Ilyas, Li Zhong-qiu. 2021. Air pollution and associated self-reported effects on the exposed students at Malakand division, Pakistan. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193, 708.

7. Wallraff, H.G. 2005. Avian navigation: pigeon homing as a paradigm, Springer, Berlin, Germany.

8. Wan Yue, Li Yu-hang, Liu Chun-hong, Li Zhong-qiu. 2020. Is the traffic accident related to air pollution? A case report from an island of Taihu Lake, China. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 11(5), 1028-1033.

9. Xu Ai-chun, Liu Chun-hong, Wan Yue, Bai Ya-li, Li Zhong-qiu. 2021. Monkeys fight more in polluted air. Scientific Reports, 11, 654.

10. Levy, T. and J. Yagil, Air pollution and stock returns in the US. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2011. 32(3): p. 374-383.

11. 万月. 2020. 空气污染的次生效应:以交通事故、马拉松赛绩、社会纠纷为例. 南京大学硕士论文.

12. 于丛，游章强，万月，李忠秋. 2021. 空气污染对信鸽比赛个体成绩的影响. 动物学杂志. 56(1), 8-15.

13. 刘春红,万月,白亚丽,王鑫鑫,李忠秋.南京红山森林动物园猕猴的社会玩耍行为[J].动物学杂志,2018,53(03):347-353.DOI:10.13859/j.cjz.201803004.

作者：李忠秋

原标题：《什么时候更容易在动物园见到猴子打架？空气污染的时候！》

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
什么时候更容易在动物园见到猴子打架？空气污染的时候_澎湃号·湃客_澎湃新闻-The Paper

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
空气污染对于人类的伤害，研究已经很多了。但对动物来说，空气污染会产生什么样的影响呢？ 怀着这样的疑问，我们研究组做了些关于信鸽和猕猴的研究。空气污染会如何影响动

# data[].attributes.body
空气污染对动物的影响

# data[].attributes.headline
英语课上提的问题关于动物

# data[].attributes.body
英语课上提的问题关于动物

# data[].attributes.body
1、新的资料搜集情况

①空气中 哪些化学成分对人是无害的？Bright

②一次污染、二次污染

空气污染的分类、来源（生活和生产）

③呼吸系统受到损害的过程模型？（沈）

④空气污染对不同年龄段的影响？

儿童/青少年认知下降、老年人影响死亡

⑤空气污染对动物的影响？渡渡鸟？

搜集新闻资料（每个人）

⑥空气污染会对动物习性产生改变吗？

佑禾未查到相关信息

2、讨论问卷及采访是否需要？是否有潜在对象？

香港大学生物多样性博物馆的老师和教授（每个人想一想问题）

3、分工本周任务（见上标黄）

# data[].attributes.headline
野火烟雾对野生动物健康和行为影响的综述

# data[].attributes.subject
野火烟雾对野生动物健康和行为影响的综述

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Topical Review * Open access

, , J L Brusa R L Emmet K Swift ¹, ¹, , ¹ and

*
Environmental Research Letters , Volume 16 , Number 12 Citation O V Sanderfoot et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 123003

Author affiliations

¹ School of Environmental & Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America

Author notes

² Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.

ORCID iDs

Buy this article in print

1748-9326/16/12/123003

Abstract

Climate change is intensifying global wildfire activity, and people and wildlife are increasingly exposed to hazardous air pollution during large-scale smoke events. Although wildfire smoke is considered a growing risk to public health, few studies have investigated the impacts of wildfire smoke on wildlife, particularly among species that are vulnerable to smoke inhalation. In this review, we synthesized research to date on how wildfire smoke affects the health and behavior of wildlife. After executing a systematic search using Web of Science, we found only 41 relevant studies. We synthesized findings from this literature and incorporated knowledge gained from fields outside wildlife science, specifically veterinary medicine and air pollution toxicology. Although studies that directly investigated effects of smoke on wildlife were few in number, they show that wildfire smoke contributes to adverse acute and chronic health outcomes in wildlife and influences animal behavior. Our review demonstrates that smoke inhalation can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning, respiratory distress, neurological impairment, respiratory and cardiovascular disease, oxidative stress, and immunosuppression in wildlife, including terrestrial and aquatic species, and these health effects can contribute to changes in movement and vocalization. Some species also use smoke as a cue to engage in fire-avoidance behaviors or to conserve energy. However, our review also highlights significant gaps in our understanding of the impacts of wildfire smoke on wildlife. Most notably, the lack of robust air pollution measurements in existing studies limits meta-analyses and hinders construction of dose-response relationships, thereby precluding predictions of health outcomes and behaviors under different air quality conditions, especially during extreme smoke events. We recommend that future studies leverage existing data sets, infrastructure, and tools to rapidly advance research on this important conservation topic and highlight the potential value of interdisciplinary collaborations between ecologists and atmospheric chemists.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

As climate change intensifies the frequency and severity of wildfires, communities around the world are increasingly vulnerable to smoke pollution (Jacob and Winner 2009). Increased wildfire activity has been linked to declines in average regional air quality and greater incidence of extreme air pollution episodes. For example, wildfires contributed to a recent increase in annual concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5, particles smaller than 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter) in the United States (McClure and Jaffe 2018, Clay and Muller 2019), and smoke events in the Pacific Northwest, United States in 2018 and 2020 caused PM 2.5 to spike to concentrations well above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Washington State Academy of Sciences 2019, Liu et al 2021a). Wildfire smoke directly contributes to adverse respiratory and cardiovascular health outcomes and mortality in humans (Cascio 2018, Chen et al 2021); in fact, studies have shown that the chemical composition of PM 2.5 in wildfire smoke is more toxic than that of urban ambient PM 2.5 (Franzi et al 2011, Aguilera et al 2021).

Wildfire smoke also sickens non-human animals, as illustrated by numerous case studies in veterinary medicine that document morbidity and mortality in domestic animals exposed to smoke, including pets and livestock (Fitzgerald and Flood 2006, Marsh 2007). These case studies demonstrate that, like people, animals can suffer from carbon monoxide poisoning, thermal and chemical damage to lung tissue, and greater susceptibility to respiratory disease as a result of smoke inhalation (Wohlsein et al 2016). In fact, animal models, including mice, rats, rabbits, sheep, and monkeys, are often used to study the onset and progression of human disease following exposure to the toxic gases and aerosols found in smoke (David et al 2009). Although many animals in fire-prone habitats are able to detect and avoid wildfires, fires still pose direct threats to wildlife (Engstrom 2010, Nimmo et al 2021), including exposure to extreme heat and smoke. Yet, the impacts of wildfire smoke on the health and behavior of wildlife are largely unknown (Hovick et al 2017, Lee et al 2017, Erb et al 2018, Geiser et al 2018).

This paucity of research on how wildfire smoke affects the health and behavior of wild animals hinders full consideration of the direct and indirect effects of wildfires when conducting risk assessments for wildlife and developing conservation plans. In addition, research on the impacts of wildfire smoke on wildlife is published in disparate journals spanning numerous disciplines (e.g. ecology, physiology, animal behavior, veterinary medicine, etc); as such, ecologists, wildlife managers, and other stakeholders may be challenged to identify relevant studies. To date, review papers have synthesized findings on first-order effects of fire on animals, including injury, morbidity, and mortality (Engstrom 2010), considered behavioral responses of mammals to fire, specifically torpor (Geiser et al 2018), and discussed fire as an evolutionary force driving animal behavior and survival (Nimmo et al 2021), but none have focused specifically on the effects of smoke from wildfires on the health and behavior of wildlife.

Wildfires are an important type of natural disturbance (Turner 2010) in forests, grasslands, and deserts around the world, and many wildlife species benefit from resources available in post-fire landscapes (Smith 2000). However, just as people now grapple with health risks posed by routine smoke events, even in airsheds where smoke pollution was previously uncommon (Wilmot et al 2021), wildlife must also contend with greater-perhaps even novel-exposure to wildfire smoke with more intense wildfire activity. The magnitude of smoke events in the 21st century further underscores the urgent need to study the impacts of wildfire smoke on wildlife. Wildfire smoke persists in the atmosphere even after flames have subsided and can travel hundreds of miles, creating hazardous air quality conditions and degrading visibility across large geographic areas (figure 1). As a result, smoke from a single wildfire could impact the health and behavior of wildlife at a much larger spatial scale than the area burned. Direct effects of wildfire smoke on individuals could scale to influence the demography of wildlife populations, with cascading community- and ecosystem-level impacts (figure 2).

In this review, we synthesized research to date on the effects of wildfire smoke on the health and behavior of wildlife. We focused specifically on the impacts of wildfire smoke rather than describing all immediate effects of wildfires on wildlife in order to more deeply investigate physiological and behavioral responses of wildlife to the large-scale smoke events that are becoming increasingly common around the world. Below, we (1) identify relevant literature on the effects of wildfire smoke on the health and behavior of wildlife, (2) highlight knowledge gaps, and (3) present opportunities for rapidly advancing research on this important topic, all of which should serve as a useful resource for guiding ecological studies and conservation actions.

In January 2021, we conducted two keyword searches using Web of Science (figure 3). Search terms included (1) 'wildfire* AND smoke*' and (2) 'fire* AND smoke*'. We performed a basic search and entered search terms into the topic field. We excluded 'news items' and 'meeting abstracts' as document types to focus on peer-reviewed literature, then further refined our search results to include only articles from categories relevant to our review (e.g. environmental science, ecology, biology, physiology, toxicology, health sciences, veterinary sciences, etc) A complete list of topic areas is provided in the appendix.

We reviewed the titles of articles in both sets of search results ( n = 4314) (figure 3). We earmarked articles with titles that included any of the following for further review: (1) the name of a specific domestic animal, wildlife species, or taxa (e.g. mammals, birds); (2) a general reference to animals or wildlife; (3) an example of an animal behavior (e.g. migration); or (4) an example of a health effect (e.g. mortality). We did not further review papers with titles suggestive of inquiry into ecosystem-level impacts of wildfires or the effects of fire or smoke on vegetation. We also excluded titles with clear references to human demographic groups (e.g. children) or epidemiological study (e.g. hospitals, emergency rooms). Next, we reviewed abstracts of articles earmarked in the review of titles ( n = 295) to assess their eligibility for a full-text review (figure 3). We assessed whether or not these papers presented research on the responses of animals to smoke from fires-regardless of the specific type of exposure investigated. Those that met these criteria were included in the list of papers that were read for this review ( n = 72; figure 3).

We sorted papers into three categories: (1) experiments using animal models; (2) case studies from veterinary medicine; and (3) research on the effects of smoke on wildlife species (figure 3). For the last category, we considered 'wildlife' to include all non-domesticated fauna in terrestrial environments, including insects, as well as aquatic animals that breathe air, such as marine mammals. This allowed us to focus on the direct effects of smoke on wildlife, rather than explore all possible indirect effects that could arise from atmospheric deposition of airborne toxins found in wildfire smoke. At least one of the co-authors of this review read and documented findings from studies of animal models ( n = 36) and case studies from veterinary medicine ( n = 18). However, we focused our review on studies of the impacts of smoke on wildlife ( n = 18). At least two co-authors of this review read and documented findings from each of these papers. In addition, we used Web of Science to conduct forwards searches, noting any citations of these studies that referenced all of the following in the title: (1) smoke, or more generally air pollution associated with fires; (2) animals, wildlife, or the name of a particular species or taxa; and (3) an animal behavior or health effect. We also conducted backwards searches using two different approaches: (1) we noted citations that may be relevant to our review while reading a paper, and (2) we conducted a backwards search of all works cited in the paper using the same criteria described for the forwards search. All additional studies on the effects of smoke on wildlife species identified in forwards and backwards searches were also reviewed ( n = 16) (figure 3). In addition to noting major findings from these papers, we pulled out several key pieces of information to characterize the research and compare results across studies, including publication year, field of study, location, type of exposure, concentrations of air pollutants (if provided), and taxa and species of animals studied, as well as whether the animals were captive (i.e. kept in a laboratory or outdoor enclosure), or free-living (i.e. in the wild). Finally, we noted whether the ultimate goal of the study was to investigate effects of smoke in people or non-human animals. While preparing this manuscript, we learned of seven additional studies that considered the impacts of wildfire smoke on wildlife, which we also included in our review. Although we did not restrict our initial keyword searches in Web of Science by language, each subsequent step of our review was limited to text available in English. In addition, we were only able to review articles available through the University of Washington library system. All together, we reviewed 41 studies that considered the effects of wildfire smoke on wildlife (figure 3, table 1).

Table 1. Summary of studies of wildlife species included in our review. For each paper, we provided the in-text citation, broad taxonomic category and specific species studied, and type of exposure (i.e. in situ or controlled) investigated. We also indicated whether a study assessed impacts in captive or free-living animals. In addition, we included the location and continent where each study took place. If locations for studies of captive animals were not provided, we noted the location of the research institution of the first author. We also provided a description of smoke exposure. Finally, we indicated if a health outcome and/or a behavioral response was observed. Citations are listed in alphabetical order.

Citation

Taxa

Species

Type of exposure

Location

Continent

Description of smoke exposure

Health outcome

Behavioral response

Bova et al ( 2011)

Birds

Red-cockaded woodpecker ( Dryobates borealis)

Controlled

Ohio, United States

North America

Smoke generated by burning maple twigs, branches, and leaf litter

No (only effects on habitat studied)

Cahill and Walker ( 2000)

Birds

Red-knobbed Hornbill ( Aceros cassidix)

In situ (free-living)

Tangkoko-Dua Saudara Nature Reserve, Sulawesi, Indonesia

Asia

Smoke from 1997 wildfire

Yes

Yes

Cheyne ( 2008)

Mammals

Bornean white-bearded gibbon ( Hylobates albibarbis)

In situ (free-living)

Natural Laboratory of Peat-swamp Forest, Indonesia

Asia

Smoke from 2006 wildfire. Months were categorized as 'smoky' if the Indeks Standar Pencemar Udara (ISPU), an air quality index, exceeded Category 3-indicative of unhealthy air quality (PM ₁₀ >100 μg m −3)-on more than 75% of days

No

Yes

Dickinson et al ( 2009)

Mammals

Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis) and Northern long-eared bat ( Myotis septentrionalis)

In situ (free-living)

Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky, United States

North America

Smoke from prescribed burns. CO peaked at ⩾400 parts per million

No

Yes

Dickinson et al ( 2010)

Mammals

Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis)

N/A (modeling exercise; data on air pollution from prescribed burns in Tar Hollow State Forest and Daniel Boone National Forest, United States)

No (no animals or specimens observed)

Engstrom ( 2010)

Multiple

Multiple

N/A (review, focused on first-order effects of fire in animals)

Yes

Yes

Erb et al ( 2018)

Mammals

Bornean orangutans ( Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii)

In situ (free-living)

Tuanan Research Station, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

Asia

Smoke from 2015 wildfire During wildfire season, daily mean concentrations of PM ₁₀ exceeded unhealthy levels (i.e. 150 μg m −3) most days (79%). PM ₁₀ peaked at 1829 μg m −3

Yes

Yes

Geiser et al ( 2018)

Mammals

Multiple (focus on small mammals)

N/A (review, focused on data from the southern hemisphere)

Yes

Yes

Höcherl and Tautz ( 2015)

Insects

European paper wasp ( Polistes dominula)

Controlled (free-living)

Wüzberg, Germany

Europe

Smoke generated by burning poplar wood

No

Yes

Hovick et al ( 2017)

Birds

Multiple (raptors)

In situ (free-living)

The Nature Conservancy Tallgrass Prairie Preserve and Oklahoma State University Cross Timbers Experimental Range, Oklahoma, United States

North America

Smoke from prescribed burns

No

Yes

Jordaan et al ( 2020)

Reptiles

Multiple (6 lizard and 8 snake species)

In situ (free-living)

Tembe Elephant Park, South Africa

Africa

Smoke from prescribed burns

Yes

Yes

Klocke et al ( 2011)

Insects

Microsania australis, Hypocerides nearcticus, and Anabarhynchus hyalipennis

In situ (free-living)

Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Australia

Smoke from wildfires in 2006-2009

No

Yes

Layne ( 2009)

Mammals

Eastern red bat ( Lasiurus borealis)

Controlled (captive)

Animals captured within and studied in outdoor enclosures at the Peck Ranch Conservation Area, Missouri, United States

North America

Smoke generated by burning leaf litter. CO peaked at 40 ppm

No

Yes

Lee et al ( 2017)

Multiple (ecoacoustics study, soundscape likely dominated by birds and insects)

In situ (free-living)

'EcoLink' wildlife overpass connecting Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and Central Catchment Nature Reserve, Singapore

Asia

Smoke from 2015 wildfire. During smoke event, the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) ranged from 97 to 267, indicative of moderate to very unhealthy air quality

No

Yes

Liu et al ( 2021b)

Insects

Painted lady butterfly ( Vanessa cardui L.)

Controlled (captive)

London, England, United Kingdom

Europe

Smoke generated by burning incense. Concentrations of PM 2.5 during experiments ranged from 0.15 mg m −3 to 1.28 mg m −3

No

Yes

Milberg et al ( 2015)

Insects

Multiple

Controlled (free-living)

Ostergotland County, Sweden

Europe

Smoke generated by burning birch wood

No

Yes

Nimmo et al ( 2021)

Multiple

Multiple

N/A (review, focused on behavioral responses to fire)

No

Yes

O'Brien et al ( 2006)

Birds

Cuban parrot ( Amazona leucocephala)

In situ

Great Abaco, Bahamas

North America

Smoke from a prescribed burn. The maximum CO ₂ concentration in the surrogate nesting cavity was 2092 ppm

No (only effects on habitat)

Sanderfoot and Gardner ( 2021)

Birds

71 common bird species

In situ (free-living)

Washington, United States

North America

Smoke from wildfires in 2015-2018. Daily mean concentration of PM 2.5 ranged from 0 to 295.8 μg m −3, with an average value of 8.6 μg m −3

No (only effects on detection studied)

Sanderfoot and Holloway ( 2017)

Birds

Multiple

N/A (review, focused on effects of air pollution on birds)

Yes

Yes

Scesny ( 2006)

Mammals

Eastern red bat ( Lasiurus borealis)

Controlled (captive)

Animals captured in the Peck Ranch Conservation Area in Missouri, United States. Study conducted in Springfield, Missouri, United States

North America

Smoke generated by burning leaf litter

No

Yes

Sensenig et al ( 2017)

Insects

Crematogaster sjostedti, C. mimosae, C. nigriceps, and Tetraponera penzigi

Controlled (free-living)

Mpala Research Centre, Kenya

Africa

Smoke generated by burning elephant dung

No

Yes

Snoddy and Tippins ( 1968)

Insects

Microsania imperfecta

In situ (free-living)

Clinch County, Georgia, United States

North America

Smoke from an incinerator

No

Yes

Tan et al ( 2018)

Insects

Squinty bush brown ( Bicyclus anynana)

Controlled (captive)

National University of Singapore, Singapore

Asia

Smoke generated from burning incense. Average concentration of PM 2.5was 117 μg m −3

Yes

No

Thompson and Purcell ( 2016)

Mammals

Fisher ( Pekania pennanti)

In situ

Yosemite National Park and Sierra National Forest, United States

North America

Smoke from prescribed burns. The maximum CO concentration in dens ranged from 5.5 to 563.5 ppm, with a mean value of 170.8 ppm

No (only effects on habitat studied)

Venn-Watson et al ( 2013)

Mammals

Bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus)

In situ (free-living)

San Diego, California, United States

North America

Smoke from wildfires in 2003 and 2007. Maximum daily mean concentrations of PM 2.5 reported for study years: 170 mg m −3 (2003) and 70 mg m −3 (2007)

Yes

No

Yang et al ( 2021)

Birds

Multiple species

In situ (free-living)

Western United States

North America

Smoke from 2020 wildfires

Yes

No

We found that although research to date on the impacts of wildfire smoke on wildlife is limited, existing evidence suggests that smoke pollution has wide-ranging direct and indirect effects on both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Studies have linked smoke inhalation to acute and chronic health outcomes in animals and sought to characterize how smoke influences animal behavior. Whereas the designs of these studies are highly variable, two general approaches have emerged in the literature: (1) experiments in which animals were intentionally exposed to smoke or constituents of smoke in a controlled environment (i.e. 'controlled exposure') and (2) opportunistic monitoring of free-living animals or animals in captivity during wildfire smoke events (i.e. ' in situ exposure'). The studies we reviewed were conducted on five continents, including North America, Australia, Europe, Asia, and Africa (figure 4), and published between 1968 and 2021. They explored responses in a wide variety of taxa, including mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects, in both controlled and in situ settings (figure 5). A complete list of studies reviewed is provided in table 1. In sections 4 through 6, we detail findings from this literature while also incorporating knowledge gained from fields outside wildlife science, specifically veterinary medicine and air pollution toxicology. Finally, in section 7, we briefly summarize studies of indirect effects of smoke on wildlife and consider how a species' life-history strategy mediates its exposure to smoke pollution.

Few studies have explicitly considered the impact of wildfire smoke on the health of wildlife (table 1); however, research from veterinary medicine and air pollution toxicology clearly demonstrates that smoke inhalation contributes to acute and chronic health outcomes in animals. Case studies detailing the symptoms, treatment, and recovery of pets and livestock following structural fires establish that animals are vulnerable to negative health outcomes from smoke inhalation (e.g. Drobatz et al 1999a, 1999b, Marsh 2007). In addition, there are numerous examples of laboratory experiments designed to investigate the effects of inhalation exposure to wildfire smoke in humans using animal models (e.g. Hargrove et al 2019, Martin et al 2020) including mice, rats, rabbits, and sheep. Although the objective of these studies is to characterize the underlying physiological mechanisms that contribute to respiratory and cardiovascular disease in humans, their findings allude to health effects we could observe in other mammalian species. These experiments have incorporated in vivo, ex vivo, and/or in vitro approaches. Some studies have also used animal models to study possible treatment interventions to improve health outcomes in humans following smoke inhalation (e.g. Janssens et al 1994, Wang et al 1999, Wong et al 2004, Syrkina et al 2007, Hamahata et al 2008, Dunn et al 2018).

Research has largely focused on mammals, but all animals that breathe air-whether terrestrial or aquatic-are vulnerable to inhalation exposure to airborne toxins, including the reactive gases and aerosols that make up smoke (e.g. carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and coarse and fine particulate matter (PM)). Many animals are susceptible to CO poisoning during smoke inhalation (Chaturvedi et al 1995, Fitzgerald and Flood 2006, Kent et al 2010, Ashbaugh et al 2012, Dörfelt et al 2014, Stern et al 2014), which can be fatal (Wohlsein et al 2016). CO binds to hemoglobin, a protein molecule containing iron that nearly all vertebrates (Ruud 1954) and many invertebrates depend on to carry oxygen through the bloodstream. This limits oxygen transport, resulting in low blood oxygen levels (i.e. hypoxemia) and insufficient supply of oxygen to tissues and organs (i.e. hypoxia) (Wohlsein et al 2016). Neurological symptoms of hypoxic brain damage could include confusion and stupor (Drobatz et al 1999a, 1999b, Mariani 2003, Kent et al 2010, Weiss et al 2011, Guillaumin and Hopper 2013). Hypoxia could also make animals more vulnerable to predation as they attempt to flee wildfires (Braithwaite and Estbergs 1987).

Smoke inhalation also causes both thermal and chemical damage to lung tissue in terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates (Fitzgerald and Flood 2006, Marsh 2007, Wohlsein et al 2016). As a result of this injury, fluid can accumulate in the lungs, a condition known as pulmonary edema (Bidani et al 1998, Jordaan et al 2020), which has been documented in pets and livestock exposed to smoke during structural fires (Verstappen and Dorrestein 2005, Fitzgerald and Flood 2006, Marsh 2007). Symptoms of smoke inhalation injury can be immediate or delayed and include labored breathing (i.e. dyspnea) (Verstappen and Dorrestein 2005, Fitzgerald and Flood 2006), rapid breathing (i.e. tachypnea) (Mariani 2003, Fitzgerald and Flood 2006), wheezing (Kemper et al 1993), panting (i.e. polypnea) (Dörfelt et al 2014), coughing (Kemper et al 1993, Fitzgerald and Flood 2006, Dörfelt et al 2014), foaming at the nostrils (McPherson 1993, Wohlsein et al 2016), and rapid heart rate (i.e. tachycardia) (Dörfelt et al 2014), which are consistent with acute respiratory distress syndrome (Guillaumin and Hopper 2013). If untreated, smoke inhalation injury can quickly impair gas exchange, resulting in hypoxemia (Wohlsein et al 2016) and elevated levels of acid in the blood (i.e. acidosis) (Bidani et al 1998). For example, in a retrospective analysis of health records of captive bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus), researchers found that blood carbon dioxide (CO ₂) levels were elevated in the month following a wildfire smoke event in 2003, possibly due to respiratory acidosis (Venn-Watson et al 2013). Air-breathing invertebrates might also be vulnerable to smoke inhalation. Tan et al ( 2018) investigated effects of smoke exposure in captive squinty bush brown butterflies ( Bicyclus anynana) and found that particles accumulated in the entryway of spiracles-external openings in the exoskeleton that vent the insect respiratory system-but did not enter the trachea.

Wildfire smoke contributes to chronic respiratory and cardiovascular health outcomes in animals. Smoke inhalation can jeopardize an animal's immune system, which is designed to protect the body from foreign matter, such as bacteria, viruses, and toxins. In mammals, smoke inhalation immediately triggers production of immune cells, including lymphocytes (e.g. T cells) and macrophages (Bidani et al 1998, Barrett et al 2006, Syrkina et al 2007, Hamahata et al 2008, Hargrove et al 2019)-a type of white blood cell that engulfs and digests (i.e. phagocytizes) foreign particles. However, exposure to wildfire smoke can alter (Venn-Watson et al 2013) or weaken (Black et al 2017) the immune response in animals. For example, whereas macrophages are able to sequester toxic particles in wildfire smoke, they are unable to destroy them; this precludes macrophages from helping to prevent infection (Wohlsein et al 2016). Furthermore, toxins in smoke also destroy antioxidants, substances that neutralize free radicals-highly reactive, oxygen-containing compounds that damage tissue (Shalini et al 1994, Hamahata et al 2008, Wegesser et al 2010). Oxidative stress can ultimately contribute to compromised immune function by destroying macrophages or other types of immune cells (Franzi et al 2011, Williams et al 2013). Lung injury and a weakened immune response can leave animals more vulnerable to respiratory infection and illness, such as pneumonia (Attwood et al 1996a, 1996b, Marsh 2007, Simone-Freilicher 2008, Lange et al 2010, Guillaumin and Hopper 2013, Wohlsein et al 2016) or laryngotracheitis (Morris et al 1986). For example, captive bottlenose dolphins were three times more likely to have bacterial pneumonia at time of death after exposure to smoke during a wildfire in 2003 (Venn-Watson et al 2013). However, age also influenced the incidence of pneumonia, and after controlling for age, the effect of fires was no longer statistically significant (Venn-Watson et al 2013). A study of rhesus macaque monkeys ( Macaca mulatta) housed in outdoor enclosures found that newborn monkeys exposed to wildfire smoke exhibited reduced lung capacity and weakened immune responses in adolescence compared to those born in a subsequent year with good air quality (Black et al 2017). Whereas this study was designed to investigate pediatric health outcomes in humans associated with wildfire smoke, these results suggest that wildlife could experience long-term, adverse health outcomes from a single smoke event. Smoke inhalation can also impair cardiovascular function in vertebrates (Kim et al 2014, Wohlsein et al 2016, Thompson et al 2018, Sharpe et al 2020) and repeated or prolonged exposure to smoke can lead to chronic heart disease (Thompson et al 2018, Martin et al 2020).

Health outcomes associated with inhalation of wildfire smoke vary as a function of its toxicity. Research from air pollution toxicology demonstrates that toxicity of biomass smoke is dependent on its chemical and biological composition (Franzi et al 2011, Kim et al 2019), which is determined by the substrate burned (e.g. peat, oak, eucalyptus, etc) and combustion conditions (e.g. flaming, smoldering) (Hargrove et al 2019, Kim et al 2019). Smoke is also subject to chemical transformation during long-range transport (Jalava et al 2006). This suggests that the specific types of vegetation burned during wildfires, the stage and severity of the fires, and the distance smoke travels ultimately affect respiratory and cardiovascular health outcomes associated with smoke inhalation in wildlife.

Negative health outcomes associated with inhalation exposure to wildfire smoke could ultimately influence demographic rates in wildlife populations, including survival, growth, and reproductive success (figure 2). In vivo studies of animal models (e.g. Bidani et al 1998, Dubick et al 2002, Lee et al 2005, Syrkina et al 2007, Lange et al 2010) and case studies from veterinary medicine (e.g. Morris et al 1986, Drobatz et al 1999b, Kent et al 2010, Dörfelt et al 2014, Stern et al 2014) provide clear evidence that animals can die from smoke inhalation. For example, Anderson et al ( 2020) linked elevated concentrations of PM 2.5 during a large-scale smoke event to increased mortality in dairy cows, specifically calves. Yet, we found only four studies that considered the effect of smoke on survival of wildlife species. A study of captive butterflies reared in smoky conditions found that caterpillars exposed to smoke exhibited a higher mortality rate than those in the control group, likely due to gas intoxication (Tan et al 2018). Gas intoxication was also hypothesized as a contributing factor to the death of lizards and snakes that did not survive prescribed burns in Tembe Elephant Park, South Africa (Jordaan et al 2020). Few specimens exhibited signs of burn injury, yet Jordaan et al found that 61% of specimens collected at the site of one fire exhibited pulmonary edema and noted particles accumulated in the lungs of two of these specimens. These findings suggest that reptiles that did not survive the fire died from asphyxiation, CO or HCN poisoning, or heat-induced cardiac arrest. Large mammals are also vulnerable to smoke inhalation-Singer et al ( 1989) reported that smoke inhalation injury or gas intoxication likely killed 246 elk ( Cervus elaphus) that perished in the 1988 wildfires in Yellowstone National Park. Finally, Yang et al ( 2021) found that smoke from extensive wildfires in the Western United States contributed to a mass avian mortality event in 2020.

Wildfire smoke could also reduce growth rates and reproductive success. Tan et al ( 2018) reported that captive squinty bush browns exposed to smoke developed more slowly and weighed less as pupae. Cahill and Walker ( 2000) reported that the nesting success of Red-knobbed Hornbills ( Aceros cassidix) declined at the Tangkoko Nature Reserve in Indonesia following extensive wildfires in 1997, possibly due to exposure to extreme heat and smoke. Although the Red-knobbed Hornbill example was the only study we found that considered the impacts of wildfire smoke on reproductive success in wild animals, a case study of domestic chickens exposed to smoke during a structural fire suggests that smoke inhalation could reduce egg production (Morris et al 1986). Previous research has linked other types of air pollution to reduced hatching success and lower clutch size in birds (e.g. Eeva and Lehikoinen 1995), which suggests that wildfire smoke could also impair avian reproductive success. In addition, PM-a major component of wildfire smoke-dirties bird feathers, which can render them less attractive to potential mates (Griggio et al 2011) and interfere with other color-based signaling or camouflage.

Wildfire smoke can also trigger shifts in animal behavior, including movement and vocalization. Such behavioral changes could be due to underlying health effects (Erb et al 2018) or serve to limit exposure to airborne toxins (Singer et al 1989, Dickinson et al 2009, Liu et al 2021b). Some species rely on smoke as an early-warning signal that helps them to avoid wildfires (Engstrom 2010, Höcherl and Tautz 2015, Álvarez-Ruiz et al 2021) or prepare to conserve energy in a post-fire landscape (Geiser et al 2018), whereas others use smoke as a cue to navigate toward newly available resources in burned habitats (Schütz et al 1999, Klocke et al 2011, Milberg et al 2015). Animals could also change their behavior in response to alterations in the physical environment that result from smoke pollution (Cheyne 2008, Lee et al 2017), such as reduced visibility (Haider et al 2019) or cooler air temperatures (Robock 1991). Emerging evidence suggests that behavioral responses to wildfire smoke could ultimately influence the short- and long-term fitness of wildlife (Cheyne 2008, Erb et al 2018).

6.1. Effects of smoke on wildlife activity

Exposure to smoke can influence wildlife activity, including movement and vocalization. Case studies from veterinary medicine demonstrate that animals sometimes alter their behavior due to acute, adverse health effects associated with smoke inhalation; for example, pets and livestock exposed to smoke from structural fires can become agitated (Fitzgerald and Flood 2006, Marsh 2007, Weiss et al 2011, Guillaumin and Hopper 2013, Mendyk et al 2020), vocalize more (Fitzgerald and Flood 2006, Weiss et al 2011), reduce their activity (Simone-Freilicher 2008) or exhibit signs of neurological impairment, such as disorientation (Marsh 2007, Weiss et al 2011, Guillaumin and Hopper 2013). Researchers observed that pinecone lizards ( Tiliqua rugosa) in captivity exhibited rapid tongue-flicking when exposed to smoke near their enclosure, a sign of agitation (Mendyk et al 2020). Animals in the wild could also alter their behavior in response to smoke pollution, possibly due to underlying health effects, as noted in one of the only studies to directly link wildfire smoke exposure to specific health outcomes for a wildlife species (Erb et al 2018). In this study, researchers documented the daily activity of male Bornean orangutans ( Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii) before, during, and after an extensive wildfire smoke event in Indonesia. They also collected urine samples opportunistically to test for ketones, a marker of fat catabolism associated with energy expenditure. The researchers found that orangutans rested more both during and after the smoke event. Furthermore, after the smoke event, orangutans traveled shorter distances and increased their caloric intake, but expended more energy (i.e. increased fat catabolism). Despite conserving energy and eating more food, orangutans still burned more calories than they consumed after an extended period of smoke exposure, which suggests that smoke inhalation negatively affected their energy budgets. The researchers postulated this could have been due to stress or a heightened immune response (Erb et al 2018).

In addition to movement, smoke can also influence animal vocalization. For example, a study of singing behavior in Bornean white-bearded gibbons ( Hylobates albibarbis) in Indonesia found that gibbons sang less when it was smoky-during months when wildfire smoke led to unhealthy air quality, both the number of days gibbons sang and the length of singing bout decreased (Cheyne 2008). Changes in vocalization during wildfire smoke events may ultimately influence entire soundscapes (Lee et al 2017). An analysis of audio recordings collected in Singapore during a haze event brought on by wildfires showed that wildlife acoustic activity, as measured by four acoustic indices, was negatively correlated with smoke pollution. Although the mechanisms driving this response were beyond the scope of the study, its authors hypothesized that several factors could have contributed to a decrease in acoustic activity, including reduced vocalization, a shift in ecological activity outside the recording period, or mortality due to direct effects of smoke exposure or reduced foraging success. Acoustic activity was suppressed for months following the smoke event, illustrating that smoke could have long-term impacts on species and communities (Lee et al 2017).

6.2. Use of smoke as a cue

6.2.1. Fire avoidance behaviors

Wildlife across taxa, including insects, reptiles, and mammals, rely on smoke as a cue to engage in fire avoidance behaviors (Nimmo et al 2021). Insects may relocate after detecting smoke to evade fires. Researchers in Germany exposed European paper wasps ( Polistes dominula) to biomass smoke and found that the insects increased their thorax temperature in response to this stressor (Höcherl and Tautz 2015). Many insects must warm up their thoraces before flying; as such, the results of this experiment suggest that smoke prompts a pre-flight warm-up behavior in wasps that prepares them for a quick escape from nearby fire (Höcherl and Tautz 2015). Researchers exposed ants in Kenya to smoke generated by burning elephant dung and found that two of the four study species evacuated in response to smoke, relocating up to 1800 m (Sensenig et al 2017). Of the two ant species that responded to smoke, the subordinate ant species ( Crematogaster nigriceps) evacuated twice as quickly as the dominant competitor ( C. mimosae). These results suggest that subordinate species may be more willing to adopt a colonist strategy following disturbance and therefore are better equipped to escape and survive wildfires (Sensenig et al 2017). However, some insects, such as the Cape honeybee ( Apis mellifera capensis), may not attempt to evade fire and instead use smoke as a cue to retreat to protective nest structures, (Tribe et al 2017). Regardless of their fire avoidance strategy, smoke could compromise the ability of insects to escape fires by impairing flight performance (Liu et al 2021b). Liu et al ( 2021b) found that the duration, distance, and speed flown by painted lady butterflies ( Vanessa cardui L.) decreased following exposure to smoke, which could adversely impact other insect behaviors as well, such as foraging and migration (Liu et al 2021b).

Studies of captive lizards suggest that smoke can also trigger fire avoidance behaviors in reptiles (Mendyk et al 2020, Álvarez-Ruiz et al 2021). For example, captive Psammodromus lizards ( Psammodromus algirus) exhibited a variety of escape behaviors when exposed to smoke, including running and scratching at their terrariums (Álvarez-Ruiz et al 2021). Furthermore, lizards were more likely to increase their activity in response to smoke if they were captured in habitats prone to wildfires, regardless of an individual's previous experience with fire. These results indicate that in areas that experience frequent fires, selective pressure drives greater sensitivity to smoke, increasing the ability of local populations to detect and evade fires (Álvarez-Ruiz et al 2021).

Smoke can also prompt mammals to arouse from torpor, enabling them to escape fires (Scesny 2006, Layne 2009, Stawski et al 2015, Nowack et al 2016, Doty et al 2018). However, not all torpid mammals flee in response to smoke, or react quickly enough to survive; responses to fire stimuli are likely to vary by species, sex, and individual (Layne 2009, Nowack et al 2016, 2018). In addition, lower ambient temperatures slow torpor arousal following smoke exposure, which suggests that torpid mammals are less able to evade fires on colder days (Layne 2009, Nowack et al 2016, Doty et al 2018). Furthermore, animals that detect smoke and arouse from torpor at cooler temperatures might not return to steady-state torpor, which increases their energy expenditure (Doty et al 2018).

To avoid fires, small animals might seek shelter underground or in rock crevices (Engstrom 2010); however, burrowing may not always protect animals from extreme heat and smoke. For example, Jordaan et al ( 2020) noted that fossorial species were well-represented in their samples of dead reptile specimens collected after prescribed burns in Tembe Elephant Park, South Africa. They hypothesized that cause of death was likely asphyxiation, gas intoxication, or heat-induced cardiac arrest, which suggests that even burrowing animals are susceptible to smoke inhalation during fires (Jordaan et al 2020).

6.2.2. Energy-saving behaviors

Some animals rely on smoke as an indicator of impending food scarcity, prompting them to engage in energy-saving strategies. Small mammals must maintain high metabolic rates, which is difficult after fires due to limited availability of food and water. Studies of captive small mammals show that smoke can increase use of torpor in some species, allowing animals to conserve energy and survive post-fire conditions (Geiser et al 2018). For example, exposure to smoke and a substrate of charcoal and ash increased duration of torpor in captive yellow-footed antechinuses ( Antechinus flavipes) (Stawski et al 2017) and captive sugar gliders ( Petaurus breviceps) (Nowack et al 2018). However, use of torpor after fires depends on food availability, and is likely to vary by species (Nowack et al 2018) and sex (Stawski et al 2017).

6.2.3. Resource availability

Pyrophilous insects (i.e. fire-associated species that benefit from resources available in post-fire landscapes) can use smoke as a cue to navigate toward fires, responding to thermal and/or olfactory signals (Schütz et al 1999, Klocke et al 2011, Álvarez et al 2015, Milberg et al 2015). Some are even known to swarm in smoke plumes, such as 'smoke flies' of the genera Microsania and Hormopeza, possibly to mate near burned trees where they deposit their eggs (Evans 1966, Snoddy and Tippins 1968, Sinclair and Cumming 2006). Schütz et al ( 1999) found that the antennae of fire bugs ( Melanophila acuminata) respond to volatiles generated in the combustion of pine, suggesting that the smell of smoke helps some beetles detect and locate burned trees. Insects may also respond to visual cues of smoke plumes but results from experimental studies are ambiguous (Hinz et al 2018). An influx of aerial insects to burned habitats could enhance foraging opportunities for bats (Braun De Torrez et al 2018) and insectivorous birds; unlike small, quadrupedal mammals, bats might actually decrease their use of torpor after fires to take advantage of this increase in food availability (Geiser et al 2018). Raptors may also be attracted to smoke plumes, which could signal an opportunity to prey on insects and small mammals fleeing fire (Hovick et al 2017).

Whereas pyrophilous insects appear to rely on olfaction to locate burned areas, exposure to smoke can impair detection of other scents. Visscher et al ( 1995) found that the antennae of honey bees ( Apis mellifera) exposed to smoke were less responsive to both a floral odor and alarm pheromones. This suggests that detection of smoke could have short-term impacts on foraging and defensive behaviors in insects (Visscher et al 1995).

Several studies have sought to quantify potential exposure to smoke for species that use specific habitats, although they did not evaluate the impact of smoke on animal health or behavior (e.g. O'Brien et al 2006, Bova et al 2011, Thompson and Purcell 2016). O'Brien et al ( 2006) measured air quality in a hole that could be used as a nesting cavity by Cuban parrots ( Amazona leucocephala) during a prescribed burn. They found that as flames passed the cavity entrance, smoke accumulated inside for about 20 min, and CO ₂ concentrations sharply increased to 2092 parts per million (ppm). O'Brien et al ( 2006) described these conditions as 'benign,' but pointed to the lack of research to date on inhalation exposure to air pollution in birds. Thompson and Purcell ( 2016) took a similar approach to assess the vulnerability of fishers ( Pekania pennanti) to smoke during prescribed burns, measuring the concentration of CO in tree cavities that were previously used or could be used as den sites. They found that whereas levels of CO during burns might not be harmful to adult fishers, they are hazardous to developing fetuses and newborns. Dickinson et al ( 2010) used air quality data collected during prescribed burns to determine if smoke exposure endangered Indiana bats ( Myotis sodalis). They determined that CO concentrations during low-intensity prescribed burns were unlikely to be dangerous but suggested that bats that roost in foliage or under bark could be more vulnerable to gas intoxication during fires than bats that roost in cavities or crevices where concentrations of poisonous gases are lower (Dickinson et al 2010). Dickinson et al ( 2009) found that CO concentrations during a prescribed burn did not exceed the threshold at which incapacitation of bats would likely occur; however, they noted that bats that roost closer to the ground would be more at risk of exposure to elevated concentrations of toxic gases. Cave-roosting bats in particular could be in danger of smoke inhalation because caves could fill with smoke before bats have a chance to escape (Dickinson et al 2009, Geiser et al 2018). These findings illustrate that exposure to air pollution during wildfires varies widely, depending on the specific habitats used by wildlife.

Although we primarily focused our review on the direct effects of wildfire smoke on the health and behavior of wildlife, it is worth considering how smoke pollution indirectly affects wildlife by driving short-term changes in habitat. Smoke limits visibility (Haider et al 2019) and cools air temperatures (Robock 1991)-changes in the physical environment that could influence the health and behavior of wild animals. While vegetative succession following wildfires generates habitat for a wide variety of fauna (Smith 2000, Jones and Tingley 2021, Stillman et al 2021), smoke from wildfires also has immediate impacts on plant growth. For example, wildfire smoke triggers seed germination in plants that grow in fire-prone habitats (Van Staden et al 2000). Smoke can also positively or negatively influence plant productivity, depending on the extent to which aerosols absorb or scatter sunlight, as well as ambient concentrations of co-pollutants that damage plants (Hemes et al 2020). Furthermore, pollutants in smoke can deposit on soils or vegetation, which can indirectly affect wildlife (Phaneuf et al 1995). Plants can absorb toxins in smoke that, if consumed, could compromise the health of herbivorous animals (Tan et al 2018). Wildfire smoke also affects aquatic habitats (Jaafar and Loh 2014). Smoke limits how far light penetrates underwater, which can influence the vertical distribution of microorganisms (Urmy et al 2016) or primary productivity of coral reefs (Risk et al 2003). Atmospheric deposition of aerosols in smoke can also degrade water quality (Phaneuf et al 1995, Earl and Blinn 2003, Corbin 2012), which can in turn alter the composition of macroinvertebrate communities (Earl and Blinn 2003) and negatively affect the health of fish or other water-breathing animals (Gresswell 1999, Gonino et al 2019).

We found that the available literature clearly demonstrates that wildfire smoke has direct and indirect effects on wildlife, including terrestrial and aquatic species (figure 2, table 1). Smoke inhalation contributes to adverse acute and chronic health outcomes in animals (Venn-Watson et al 2013, Black et al 2017), including CO poisoning, respiratory distress, neurological impairment, respiratory and cardiovascular disease, oxidative stress, and immunosuppression. These health effects could contribute to changes in wildlife activity, including movement (Erb et al 2018) and vocalization (Cheyne 2008). Animal behavior could also be influenced by changes in the physical environment that co-occur with smoke pollution, such as reduced sunlight or cooler air and water temperatures. Finally, many species that depend on fire-prone habitats have evolved to use smoke as a cue to engage in fire avoidance (Nimmo et al 2021) or energy-conserving behaviors (Geiser et al 2018) or perceive smoke as a signal of resource availability (Schütz et al 1999). Both the immediate, direct effects of wildfire smoke on the health and behavior of animals and the long-term impacts of smoke on wildlife habitat could ultimately influence the demography of wildlife populations (figure 2).

However, our review also demonstrates that a limited number of studies have investigated-or even considered-the impacts of wildfire smoke on wildlife (table 1). For decades, naturalists have observed how wildlife respond to smoke from wildfires (e.g. Komarek 1969, Braithwaite and Estbergs 1987) and noted the vulnerability of animals exposed to smoke during wildfires or prescribed burns (e.g. Geluso et al 1986). Yet, we found few peer-reviewed studies that directly investigated health outcomes or behavioral responses in wildlife associated with inhalation or detection of biomass smoke. After conducting a comprehensive search, we only identified 41 relevant studies, several of which did not explicitly test for an effect of smoke on animals and, instead, only considered how the presence of smoke could explain the responses observed (e.g. Cahill and Walker 2000, Jordaan et al 2020). Furthermore, research to date is unequally distributed across taxa (figure 5) and world regions (figure 4), with most studies conducted on mammals (39%) or insects (29%) in North America (37%), followed by Europe (17%) and Australia (15%) (figure 4). Our keyword searches were conducted in English, which could have influenced the geographic distribution of the studies we reviewed.

Researchers have used a variety of methods to investigate the impacts of smoke on wildlife, which makes it challenging to compare findings across existing studies. Monitoring animals before, during, and after wildfires or prescribed burns (e.g. Dickinson et al 2009, Jordaan et al 2020) allows researchers to study how free-living animals respond to the onset and progression of a smoke event and enables direct inference about the impacts of biomass smoke on wildlife. However, such studies are difficult to plan, tend to be logistically complicated, and can jeopardize the health and safety of the research team (Erb et al 2018). Alternatively, researchers have studied how animals respond to smoke generated in a controlled environment, such as a laboratory or outdoor enclosure (e.g. Nowack et al 2018, Tan et al 2018). This approach may be easier to implement because it does not require coordination with a fire management team or planning fieldwork around unpredictable wildfires. Controlled conditions also allow researchers to investigate specific health outcomes and behaviors in animals that would be difficult to assess in the wild. However, despite attempts to simulate biomass smoke that is representative of what animals would be exposed to during a wildfire smoke event in their natural habitat (e.g. Layne 2009), controlled exposure experiments cannot reproduce the exact air quality and visibility conditions animals are likely to encounter in the wild. In addition, controlled studies are often limited to smaller species that are relatively easy to capture (e.g. insects, small mammals), and captive animals could exhibit behavioral changes during experiments that arise from confinement and should not be attributed to air pollution exposure (Sterner 1993a, 1993b). In sum, the experience of smoke exposure for animals is likely to be vastly different between in situ and controlled studies, which makes it difficult to compare their findings.

Another limiting factor in connecting findings from existing research is the lack of robust air pollution measurements during field studies and experiments. Primary components of wildfire smoke include water vapor, CO ₂, CO, PM, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and hazardous air pollutants, such as acrolein, benzene, and formaldehyde (De Vos et al 2009). However, the exact biological (Kobziar and Thompson 2020) and chemical composition of smoke-and therefore its toxicity (Franzi et al 2011, Kim et al 2019)-is determined by fuel source (e.g. peat, oak, eucalyptus, etc), combustion conditions (e.g. flaming, smoldering) (Hargrove et al 2019, Kim et al 2019), weather, topography, and long-range transport (Jalava et al 2006). Without measuring the concentrations of reactive gases and aerosols animals are exposed to, it is impossible to construct dose-response relationships for specific health outcomes (Jaafar and Loh 2014, Sanderfoot and Holloway 2017). Furthermore, the composition of smoke could affect the visual and olfactory cues that elicit behavioral responses in wildlife. For example, Komarek observed that the behavior of Carolina grasshoppers ( Dissoteria carolina) varied depending on smoke conditions-when exposed to dense, white smoke, the grasshoppers ceased all activity, yet when exposed to black smoke, grasshoppers exhibited fire avoidance behaviors. To facilitate comparisons and meta-analyses of findings across studies, it is critical that future investigations move beyond qualitative descriptions of smoke and actually quantify exposure by measuring concentrations of specific gases and aerosols (Engstrom 2010, Sanderfoot and Holloway 2017).

More research is needed to identify which taxa and species are most threatened by wildfire smoke and determine how their vulnerability is influenced by physiology, behavior, and life-history strategy. It is well-established that birds are more sensitive to air pollution than other taxa (Brown et al 1997) and therefore more likely to be susceptible than other animals to direct health effects associated with smoke inhalation. Cetaceans, like birds, exchange most of the air in their lungs with each breath, which might put them at greater risk than other mammals of experiencing adverse health outcomes during smoke events (Venn-Watson et al 2013). Animal behavior and habitat use within and across species can also influence smoke exposure, thereby mediating risks. For example, bats that roost at higher heights are more protected from toxic gases during prescribed burns, and bats in torpor are less exposed to airborne toxins than they would be if they were active (Dickinson et al 2009). Furthermore, overlap between the timing of smoke pollution episodes and life-history events likely contributes to species-specific vulnerability to wildfire smoke. For instance, birds attending to chicks (Cahill and Walker 2000) or bats caring for pups (Dickinson et al 2009) are likely more threatened by heat and smoke during fires than adults not tending to offspring, and fossorial reptiles are in greater danger when they come to the surface to feed or seek a mate (Jordaan et al 2020). Comparing species distributions with spatial and temporal trends in air pollution could help wildlife managers determine if smoke should be considered alongside other threats, such as habitat degradation, when developing wildlife conservation plans.

Animals have evolved alongside wildfires for thousands of years, but megafires driven by climate change are generating novel disturbance stressors, such as large-scale smoke events, that could exert selective pressure on wildlife (Nimmo et al 2021). The fire regimes species are adapted to are changing, and the traits that allow them to co-exist with fire and smoke may not be sufficient in the age of megafires (Nimmo et al 2021). For example, typical fire avoidance behaviors might not be sufficient to protect wildlife from injury or morbidity during more severe, fast-moving fires (Engstrom 2010, Nimmo et al 2021), and even animals that are not in the direct path of fires can still be exposed to dangerous levels of wildfire smoke (Erb et al 2018) (figure 1). As climate change intensifies smoke pollution, more animals are at risk of acute and chronic health outcomes associated with smoke inhalation, which could lower survival and reproductive success (figure 2). Over time, animals may adapt behavioral responses to detect hazardous air quality and limit their exposure to toxic gases and aerosols; however it is also possible that during large-scale smoke events, even well-adapted species may not find any refuge. Fire-adapted species might respond to visual and olfactory cues during large-scale smoke events even when fires are far away, which could have cascading impacts on wildlife communities. Pyrophilous species that rely on smoke as a cue to navigate toward burned areas may become disoriented during large-scale smoke events that occur hundreds of miles from fires, which could lead to reduced fitness and increased vulnerability to predation. Other species that use visual and olfactory cues from smoke to initiate fire-avoidance behaviors may do so at the expense of unnecessary energy expenditure when a fire is not an immediate threat (Dickinson et al 2009). Animals that exhibit escape behaviors when it is smoky could also be more vulnerable to predation; natural history observations suggest that raptors hunt insects and small mammals at the edge of fires (Braithwaite and Estbergs 1987) and may be attracted to smoke plumes as a signal of prey availability (Hovick et al 2017). Additionally, prey species often use scent cues to detect and avoid predators (Blumstein et al 2002); large-scale smoke events may mask olfactory signals and affect the ability of prey to detect predators, further increasing their predation risk. Shifts in predator-prey interactions during smoke events could ultimately influence wildlife populations and community dynamics (figure 2).

Earlier and more prolonged wildfire seasons might pose novel threats to species that now encounter wildfire smoke during a critical stage of their life cycle, such as reproduction or migration. For example, the breeding phenology of songbirds may increasingly overlap with the smoke season, which could adversely impact songbirds in a reproductive state. Individuals that breed earlier, thereby avoiding reproductive activities during peak smoke season, could have higher reproductive success. This could lead to the evolution of traits, such as more synchronous or asynchronous breeding (Iwasa and Levin 1995), depending on the risks and benefits associated with the timing of breeding in relation to the threats posed by smoke events. Similarly, climate change is thought to be driving earlier breeding periods in many songbirds (Hällfors et al 2020), a trend that could be reinforced as smoke pollution worsens air quality during the summer months. Although wildfire smoke could function as an ecological disturbance that forces some species to adapt their life-history strategies, it is unlikely that all species threatened by smoke pollution will be able to adapt their phenology to match changing environmental conditions (Both and Visser 2001). More research is needed to assess how the frequency and timing of massive smoke events affects species adaptations to fire across different fire regimes.

We did not find any studies that explicitly linked wildfire smoke to demographic rates in wildlife populations (figure 2); however, emerging evidence suggests that the impact of large-scale smoke events on survival of wildlife species could be substantial. Yang et al ( 2021) found that air quality contributed to the spatial distribution of bird deaths in a mass avian mortality event in the Western United States in late summer 2020 (Yang et al 2021). This was not the first study to suggest that air pollution has negative demographic consequences for bird populations-a recent study also found that reductions in ozone (O ₃) pollution in the United States prevented the loss of more than one billion birds (Liang et al 2020). Although O ₃ is not a component of wildfire smoke, concentrations of O ₃ can be higher on smoky days (Brey and Fischer 2016). Smoke inhalation has also been implicated in the death of insects (Tan et al 2018), reptiles (Jordaan et al 2020), and mammals (Singer et al 1989). Taken together, these findings emphasize the need to consider if and how wildfire smoke affects demographic rates in wildlife populations (figure 2).

Shifts in animal behavior during wildfire smoke events might ultimately affect the probability of observing wildlife, which has important implications for wildlife research and monitoring. For example, animals that use smoke as cue to engage in fire-avoidance (e.g. burrowing) or energy-conserving behaviors (e.g. torpor) could be more difficult to observe during wildfire smoke events (Geiser et al 2018). Sanderfoot and Gardner ( 2021) investigated how wildfire smoke affected detection of 71 common bird species in Washington, United States and found that particle pollution during the wildfire season influenced the probability of observing 37% of study species-as PM 2.5 increased, 16 species were less likely to be observed and 10 species were more likely to be observed. These results suggest that species-specific behavioral responses to wildfire smoke ultimately influence researchers' ability to detect wildlife. Failing to account for how smoke affects observations of wildlife could bias inference about wildlife activity and population demographics (Sanderfoot and Gardner 2021).

To develop effective policy for wildlife conservation, we must rapidly expand our understanding of the effects of wildfire smoke on wildlife. We believe that ecologists and wildlife managers are well-positioned to tackle this challenge by leveraging pre-existing resources and infrastructure to address critical knowledge gaps. For example, camera traps, GPS tags, and acoustic recorders are often deployed in fire-prone areas as part of long-term monitoring projects, many of which are likely to overlap with the wildfire season (figure 6). Data collected by these instruments could be paired with long-term air quality monitoring data to investigate how wildfire smoke drives shifts in observations of wildlife (e.g. Lee et al 2017) or explore specific behavioral responses to smoke pollution, such as movement and vocalization. This equipment could also be deployed to monitor wildlife before, during, and after prescribed burns. Studies of marked individuals pre- and post-fire could also provide insight into the direct effects of fires on demographic rates (Engstrom 2010). In addition, retrospective analyses of health records of captive animals housed in outdoor enclosures at zoos and aquariums could be used to assess how sudden, extreme smoke events influence the health of wildlife across a wide variety of taxa (Venn-Watson et al 2013, Black et al 2017). Finally, data from existing large-scale databases, such as the North American Breeding Bird Survey, eBird, eMammal, iNaturalist, Movebank, and Map of Life, could be used in correlative studies to link smoke exposure to observations of wildlife.

To facilitate comparison of future studies, we recommend that researchers at minimum (1) identify the primary type of vegetation burned during prescribed burns or wildfires, or alternatively the substrate burned to generate smoke in controlled experiments and (2) incorporate measurements of PM 2.5 during exposure. PM 2.5 is often the focus of epidemiological investigations into the impacts of wildfire smoke on public health (McClure and Jaffe 2018, Aguilera et al 2021, Liu et al 2021a); as such, there is a multitude of resources available to characterize particle pollution during smoke events or controlled experiments, including data from ground-based air pollution sensors, air quality models, and satellite instruments (Diao et al 2019). Data from ground-based air quality monitors are considered the 'gold standard' for estimating exposure to air pollution (Diao et al 2019) and are often available to the public-for example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provides data on air pollution across the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands on the web at www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data. If data from ground-based monitors is not available at relevant spatial and temporal scales, atmospheric scientists might rely on statistical interpolation or Land-Use Regression (LUR) models to build PM 2.5 exposure estimates (Jerrett et al 2005, Zou et al 2009). Alternatively, output from chemical transport models (CTMs) can be used in retrospective analyses and forecasting (Zou et al 2009). CTMs simulate air pollution by modeling transformation and transport of emissions (Jerrett et al 2005); examples of CTMs include the Community Model for Air Quality (CMAQ) and the Weather Research and Forecasting Model-Chemistry (WRF-Chem). Satellite data are also increasingly used to build PM 2.5 exposure estimates, although measurements from instruments on polar-orbiting satellites are only available once or twice a day (West et al 2016, Diao et al 2019). Some of these approaches could be readily implemented with minimal training (Diao et al 2019), but others require technical knowledge. Regardless, careful consideration of the location and behavior of the target population is essential in determining exposure to specific pollutants. We recommend that ecologists studying the impacts of wildfire smoke on wildlife collaborate with atmospheric scientists to build PM 2.5 exposure estimates using the best available tools.

The frequency and severity of large-scale smoke events are increasing as climate change intensifies global wildfire activity (Westerling et al 2011, Abatzloglou and Williams 2016), posing new risks to wildlife (Nimmo et al 2021). Despite substantial research linking wildfire smoke to adverse health outcomes in humans, few studies have investigated the physiological and behavioral responses to wildfire smoke in animals (figure 4, table 1) (Erb et al 2018, Geiser et al 2018). However, research to date suggests that smoke inhalation contributes to negative acute and chronic health outcomes in a diversity of air-breathing animals, including mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects (figure 2, table 1). Detection of smoke triggers fire-avoidance and/or energy-conserving behaviors in some wildlife species, and some species use smoke as a cue to navigate toward fires to take advantage of resources available in burned habitats (figure 2). However, even species that are adapted to fire-prone habitats are at risk of health outcomes linked to smoke inhalation, and it is unclear how they will cope with more extreme smoke pollution episodes. To inform the study and conservation of wildlife in a rapidly warming world, it is imperative that we expand our knowledge of wildfire smoke impacts on wildlife. Bridging the divide between the disciplines of ecology and atmospheric science will be essential in meeting this goal. We strongly recommend that scientists and managers build interdisciplinary partnerships and leverage existing data sets, infrastructure, and tools to quickly and efficiently address knowledge gaps and tackle research questions of global importance.

We thank Tom Gillman for his help creating the conceptual model in figure 2, and Trent Roussin for his assistance reviewing titles from results of our initial keyword search. We thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for helpful feedback on earlier drafts. We also acknowledge the use of imagery from the NASA Worldview application ( https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/), part of the NASA Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) (figure 1). This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (Grant No. DGE-1762114), the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program (Grant No. NI19MSCFRXXXG035/Project Accession No. 1020586) from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists (ARCS) Foundation Graduate Fellowship, Seattle (pre-doctoral fellowship). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or USDA.

No new data were created or analysed in this study.

O V S: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing, visualization, project administration, funding acquisition; S B B, J L B, R L E, S J G, and K S: methodology, investigation, writing-review & editing, visualization; B G: methodology, investigation, writing-review & editing, visualization, funding acquisition.

We have no conflicts of interest to declare.

We refined results from our initial keyword search in Web of Science to include only articles from categories deemed relevant to our literature review. We considered the top 100 Web of Science categories for each keyword search. Articles from the following categories were included from each keyword search.

fire* AND smoke*

Environmental Sciences, Public Environmental Occupational Health, Forestry, Plant Sciences, Ecology, Geosciences Multidisciplinary, Toxicology, Medicine General Internal, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Remote Sensing, Respiratory System, Environmental Studies, Oceanography, Water Resources, Biodiversity Conservation, Cardiac Cardiovascular Systems, Mathematics Interdisciplinary Applications, Biochemistry Molecular Biology, Computer Science Interdisciplinary Applications, Agriculture Multidisciplinary, Oncology, Biotechnology Applied Microbiology, Veterinary Sciences, Agronomy, Physiology, Biology, Infectious Diseases, Allergy, Genetics Heredity, Immunology

wildfire* AND smoke*

Environmental Sciences, Public Environmental Occupational Health, Forestry, Geosciences Multidisciplinary, Remote Sensing, Toxicology, Ecology, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Environmental Studies, Respiratory System, Plant Sciences, Water Resources, Oceanography, Medicine General Internal, Biodiversity Conservation, Biochemistry Molecular Biology, Geography, Agriculture Multidisciplinary, Allergy, Biology, Cardiac Cardiovascular Systems, Immunology, Marine Freshwater Biology, Agronomy, Cell Biology, Communication, Computer Science Interdisciplinary Applications, Development Studies, Genetics Heredity, Mathematics Interdisciplinary Applications, Physiology, Statistics Probability, Area Studies, Behavioral Sciences, Biotechnology Applied Microbiology, Developmental Biology, Entomology, Evolutionary Biology, Horticulture, Limnology, Mathematical Computational Biology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A review of the effects of wildfire smoke on the health and behavior of wildlife

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Topical Review * Open access , , J L Brusa R L Emmet K Swift 1, 1, , 1 and * Environmental Research Letters , Volume 16 , Number 12 Citation O V Sanderfoot et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett.

# data[].attributes.headline
空气污染对人类和动物的影响有没有一样的地方<

# data[].attributes.body
空气污染对人类和动物的影响有没有一样的地方

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
对动物的危害

空气污染对动物的危害和影响与对人的情况相似凡是对人造成了危害的空气污染物，都同时对动物产生一定的危害和影响，使不少动物患病或死，既有急性中毒，也有漫性中毒:既有直接摄入空气污染物引起的，也有通过食物链间接摄入的。

美国蒙大拿州某铜治炼排放出人量SO2、As2O3污染了周围的牧草，草中含高达400mg/kg，使24km2范围内3500只羊中，死亡625只，蒙大拿州一磷肥厂，排放出大量氟化氢，严重污染了周围环境，牧草饲料氟含量高达1000mg/kg。致使牛患氟病，产奶减少，生殖率降低。

我国内蒙古包头钢铁，所用矿含氟量很高，按放大量含氟烟气，污染了空气和牧 草及水源，致使牛、羊、马等牲畜骨骼变形及骨折等。在兰州、抚顺及其它些地方的电解铝厂因排放出高浓度的氟化氢，使食草牲畜中毒，对动物的生殖、发育均有不利影响。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
对动物的危害 空气污染对动物的危害和影响与对人的情况相似凡是对人造成了危害的空气污染物，都同时对动物产生一定的危害和影响，使不少动物患病或死，既有急性中毒，也有漫性中毒:既有直接摄入空气污染物引起的，也有通过食物链间接摄入的。 美国蒙大拿州某铜治炼排放出人量SO2、As2O3污染了周围的牧草，草中

# data[].attributes.headline
【重要】根据提问继续搜集资料1.18

# data[].attributes.subject
【重要】根据提问继续搜集资料1.18

# data[].attributes.body
LOI

①哪些化学成分对人类呼吸系统有害？对哪些器官？哪些无害？

②空气污染的来源？(有待细化：一次污染、二次污染、视频-Bright)

③有哪些呼吸系统的疾病？有什么危害？（模型？）

④空气污染对儿童、青少年和老年人的不同影响？（Jayden世卫组织）

LOI2

①空气污染如何影响动物？/有没有直接因为空气污染而灭绝的动物？渡渡鸟？（Lika）

②对哪些动物有影响？有哪些方面的影响？

③空气污染会对动物习性产生改变吗？产生什么变化？（佑禾）

其他：carbfix-Bright 灰霾组织-新闻图片、法律法规图片

———————————1.18

# data[].attributes.body
CI

空气污染影响人和动物的生命健康。

Air pollution affects the lives and health of people and animals.

LOI

【原因 Causation】

空气污染如何导致人类呼吸系统疾病；

How air pollution can cause human respiratory diseases;

【连系 Connection】

空气污染与动物灭绝之间的连系；

The connection between air pollution and animal extinction;

【责任 Responsibility】

人们防治空气污染的行动。

People's actions to combat air pollution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
西城区 空气质量预报 - The Weather Channel | weather.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
空气质量引用来自 The Weather Channel 和 weather.com 的天气状况、污染物以及研究情况，提供各类资讯。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
空气污染，又称为大气污染，按照 国际标准化组织（ISO）的定义，空气污染通常是指: 由于人类活动或自然过程引起某些物质进入大气中，呈现出足够的浓度，达到足够的时间，并因此危害了人类的舒适、健康和福利或环境的现象。

换言之，只要是某一种物质其存在的量、性质及时间足够对人类或其他生物、财物产生影响者，我们就可以称其为空气污染物；而其存在造成的现象，就是空气污染。

2017年10月27日， 世界卫生组织国际癌症研究机构公布的致癌物清单初步整理参考，室外空气污染在一类致癌物清单中。 [1]

大气污染

大气是由一定比例的 氮气、 氧气、 二氧化碳、 水蒸气和固体杂质微粒组成的混合物。就干燥空气而言，按体积计算，在标准状态下，氮气占78.08%，氧气占20.94%， 稀有气体 占0.93%，二氧化碳占0.03%，而其他气体及杂质体积都大约是0.02%。各种自然变化往往会引起大气成分的变化。

例如， 火山喷发时有大量的粉尘和二氧化碳等气体喷射到大气中，造成火山喷发地区烟雾弥漫，毒气熏人；雷电等自然原因引起的森林大面积火灾也 [2] 会增加二氧化碳和烟粒的 含量 等。

工业大气污染

（1）工业：工业生产是大气污染的一个重要来源。工业生产排放到大气中的污染物种类繁多，有 烟尘、硫的氧化物、 氮的氧化物、 有机化合物、 卤化物 、碳化合物等。其中有的是烟尘，有的是气体。

（3）交通运输：汽车、火车、飞机、轮船是当代的主要运输工具，它们烧煤或石油产生的废气也是重要的污染物。特别是城市中的汽车，量大而集中，尾气所排放的污染物能直接侵袭人的呼吸器官，对城市的空气污染很严重，成为大城市空气的主要污染源之一。汽车排放的废气主要有一氧化碳、二氧化硫、 氮氧化物和 碳氢化合物 等，前三种物质危害性很大。

大气污染的类型很多，已经发现有危害的达100多种，大气污染物根据化学物理性质的不同可分为：

（1） 还原型污染 ：常发生在以使用煤炭和石油为主的地区，主要污染物有二氧化硫、一氧化碳和颗粒物。

（2）氧化型污染：汽车尾气污染及其产生的 光化学污染 。

（4）其他特殊污染：主要是从各类工业企业排出的各种化学物质。

大气污染物对人体的危害是多方面的，主要表现是呼吸道疾病与生理机能障碍，以及眼鼻等粘膜组织受到刺激而患病，是造成老年哮喘的慢性因素，肺气不足导致体力下降。

国家卫生计生委最新发布的我国城市居民死亡原因排序中， 恶性肿瘤死亡排在第一，其中肺癌又居其首位。我国肺癌发病在恶性肿瘤构成比男性27%，女性是22%。 [3]

世卫组织统计，全球每年有700万人死于空气污染。空气污染会导致儿童肺部生长和功能下降、呼吸道感染和哮喘加重，还会导致成年人过早死于缺血性心脏病和中风。与气候变化一样，空气污染是影响人类健康的最大环境威胁之一，中低收入国家所受影响更为严重。 [9]

大气污染物，尤其是二氧化硫、 氟化物等对植物的危害是十 [4] 分严重的。当污染物浓度很高时，会对植物产生急性危害，使植物叶表面产生伤斑，或者直接使叶枯萎脱落；当污染物浓度不高时，会对植物产生慢性危害，使植物叶片褪绿，或者表面上看不见什么危害症状，但植物的生理机能已受到了影响，造成植物产量下降，品质变坏。

大气污染物对天气和气候的影响是十分显著的，可以从以下几个方面加以说明：

酸雨

①减少到达地面的 太阳辐射量：从工厂、发电站、汽车、家庭取暖设备向大气中排放的大量烟尘微粒，使空气变得非常浑浊，遮挡了阳光，使得到达地面的太阳辐射量减少。据观测统计，在大工业城市烟雾不散的日子里， 太阳光直接照射到地面的量比没有烟雾的日子减少近40%。 大气污染 严重的城市，天天如此，就会导致人和动植物因缺乏阳光而生长发育不好。

②增加大气降水量：从大工业城市排出来的微粒，其中有很多具有水气凝结核的作用。因此，当大气中有其他一些降水条件与之配合的时候，就会出现降水天气。在大工业城市的下风地区，降水量更多 [2] 。

③下酸雨：有时候，从天空落下的雨水中含有硫酸。这种酸雨是大气中的污染物二氧化硫经过氧化形成硫酸，随自然界的降水下落形成的。硫酸雨能使大片森林和农作物毁坏，能使纸品、纺织品、皮革制品等腐蚀破碎，能使金属的防锈涂料变质而降低保护作用，还会腐蚀污染建筑物。

在大工业城市上空，由于有大量废热排放到空中，因此，近地面空气的温度比四周郊区要高一些。这种现象在气象学中称作"热岛效应"。

经过研究，人们认为在有可能引起气候变化的各种大气污染物质中，二氧化碳具有重大的作用。从地球上无数烟囱和其他种种废气管道排放到大气中的大量二氧化碳，约有50%留在大气里。二氧化碳能吸收来自地面的长波辐射，使近地面层空气温度增高，这叫做" 温室效应"。经粗略估算，如果大气中 二氧化碳含量 增加25%，近地面气温可以增加0.5～2℃。如果增加100%，近地面温度可以增高1.5～6℃。有的专家认为，大气中的二氧化碳含量照2000年以后的速度增加下去，会使得南北极的冰融化加速，导致全球的气候异常。

康熙乾隆死于雾霾？或因大量烧炭取暖致"霾灾" ，皇帝也成空气污染祭品，这是什么鬼？日前台媒称，其实康熙、乾隆等多位清帝都可能死于雾霾。近日，澳门镜湖医院心脏内科医生谭健锹专擅 心血管疾病 ，出书《历史课听不到的奇闻：那些你不知道的医疗外史》剖析古代空气污染如何成为皇帝杀手。

谭健锹读史发现，清朝包括 康熙、乾隆等10位皇帝都死在北京寒冬，这正是银发族(老年人)最容易 心血管病发致死的关卡，而北京从元代以来就有史上有名的雾霾之害，也是火上加油的杀手之一。 [5]

大气污染源情况的影响可从源强和源高两方面来看。源强是指污染物的排放速率。污染物的浓度与 源强成正比，即源强越大， 污染 越严重。

源高是指污染源排放的高度。源高对污染物的浓度分布有很大影响。一般来说，离污染源越远，污染物的浓度越低，但对于高架源来说，情况比较复杂。以 烟囱为例，地面污染物的浓度在离烟囱很近处很低，随着距离的增加逐渐增加，达到一个最大值后又逐渐减小 [2] 。

防治空气污染是一个庞大的系统工程，需要个人、集体、国家、乃至全球各国的共同努力，可考虑采取以下几方面措施。

太阳能

改革能源结构，多采用 无污染能源（如太阳能、 风能、 水力发电 ）和低污染能源（如天然气），对燃料进行预处理（如烧煤前先进行脱硫），改进燃烧技术等均可减少排污量。另外，在污染物未进入大气之前，使用除尘消烟技术、冷凝技术、液体吸收技术、回收处理技术等消除废气中的部分污染物，可减少进入大气的污染物数量。植物净化法，我国利用植物源消毒灭菌已有3000多年的历史。

气象条件不同，大气对污染物的容量便不同，排入同样数量的污染物，造成的污染物浓度便不同。对于风力大、通风好、湍流盛、对流强的地区和时段，大气扩散稀释能力强，可接受较多厂矿企业活动。逆温的地区和时段，大气扩散稀释能力弱，便不能接受较多的污染物，否则会造成严重大气污染。因此应对不同地区、不同时段进行排放量的有效控制。

厂址选择、烟囱设计、城区与工业区规划等要合理，不要排放大气过度集中，不要造成重复迭加污染，形成局部地区严重污染事件发生。

茂密的林丛能降低风速，使空气中携带的大粒灰尘下降。树叶表面粗糙不平，有的有绒毛，有的能分泌粘液和油脂，因此能吸附大量飘尘。蒙尘的叶子经雨水冲洗后，能继续吸附飘尘。如此往复拦阻和吸附尘埃，能使空气得到净化。

实行由煤向燃气的转换。同时，加紧研究和开辟其他新型的能源，如太阳能、 氢燃料 、地热等。这样也可以大大减轻烟尘的污染。

不要乱扔废弃物；出行尽量乘坐公交车、地铁，减少私家车使用；多参加植树等绿化活动；私家车安装 尾气处理装置 ，使用润滑油使燃油充分燃烧，减少有害气体排放。

减少雾霾天气外出（根据相关解释，Ozone为臭氧，而PM2.5指的是直径为2.5微米以下的细颗悬浮粒物，也叫可入肺颗粒物，这种悬浮颗粒是空气中的 "健康杀手"。对呼吸系统、心脏及血液系统等造 成广泛的损伤）。

出门戴口罩（口罩材质、使用寿命、技术水平等因素是界定口罩质量高低的标准，消费者如无特殊需要，不必抢购标有各种功效的"概念口罩"）。

注意清洁（深层清洁毛孔的灰尘、细菌，保护人体防护的第一道防线-皮肤）。

补充营养，适当通过100微克补硒，硒元素是"天然解毒剂"，增强抵抗力。

1.燃煤电站锅炉石灰石/石灰-石膏湿法烟气脱硫技术

采用石灰石或石灰作为脱硫吸收剂，在吸收塔内，吸收剂浆液与烟气充分接触混合，烟气中的二氧 化硫与浆液中的碳酸钙（或氢氧化钙）以及鼓入的氧 化空气进行化学反应从而被脱除，最终脱硫副产物为 二水硫酸钙 即石膏。该技术的脱硫效率一般大于95% ， 可达 98% 以上 ； SO₂ 排放 浓度一 般小于100mg/m3 ，可达 50mg/m3 以下。单位投资大致为150~250 元/kW；运行成本一般低于 1.5 分/kWh。

利用在脱硫吸收塔入口与第一层喷淋层间安装的多孔薄片状设备，使进入吸收塔的烟气经过该设备 后流场分布更均匀，同时烟气与在该设备上形成的浆 液液膜撞击，促进气、液两相介质发生反应，达到脱 除一部分 SO2 的目的。该技术将喷淋塔和鼓泡塔技术 相结合，对提高脱硫效率、减少浆液循环量有显著效 果，特别适用于脱硫达标改造项目。双相整流装置能 提高系统脱硫效率 20%~30%，整体脱硫效率可达 97% 以上；阻力为 600Pa~700Pa，单位投资大致为 3~6 元/kWh，电耗降低约 250~850 kWh/h。

采用电石渣作为脱硫吸收剂，在吸收塔内，吸收剂浆液与烟气充分接触混合，烟气中的二氧化硫与浆 液中的 氢氧化钙 以及鼓入的氧化空气进行化学反应 从而被脱除，最终脱硫副产物为二水硫酸钙即石膏。 该技术的脱硫效率一般大于 95%，可达 98%以上；SO₂ 排放浓度一般小于 100mg/Nm3，可达 50mg/Nm3 以下； 单位投资大致为 150~250 元/kW；运行成本一般低于1.35 分/kWh。

4. 循环流化床 干法/ 半干法烟气脱硫除尘及多污染物协同净化技术

以循环流化床原理为基础，通过物料的循环利用，在反应塔内吸收剂、吸附剂、循环灰形成浓相的 床态，并向反应塔中喷入水，烟气中多种污染物在反应塔内发生化学反应或物理吸附；经反应塔净化后的烟气进入下游的除尘器，进一步净化烟气。此时烟气中的 SO₂ 和几乎全部的 SO3，HCl，HF 等酸性成分被 吸收而除去，生成 CaSO3·1/2 H₂O、CaSO4·1/2 H₂O 等副产物。该技术的脱硫效率一般大于 90%，可达98%以上；SO2 排放浓度一般小于 100mg/m3，可达50mg/m3 以下；单位投资大致为 150~250 元/kW；在不添加任何吸附剂及脱硝剂的条件下运行成本一般 为 0.8~1.2 分/kWh。

采用石灰石作为脱硫吸收剂，在吸收塔内，吸收剂浆液与烟气充分接触混合，烟气中的二氧化硫与浆 液中的碳酸钙（或氢氧化钙）以及鼓入的氧化空气进 行化学反应从而被脱除，最终脱硫副产物为二水硫酸 钙即石膏。该技术的脱硫效率一般大于 95%，可达98%以上；SO₂ 排放浓度一般小于 100mg/m3，可达50mg/m3 以下；单位投资大致为 150~250 元/kW 或15~25 万元/m2 烧结面积；运行成本一般低于 1.5 分/kWh。

采用电石渣作为脱硫吸收剂，在吸收塔内，运行成本一般低于1.35 分/kWh。

采用白泥作为脱硫吸收剂，在吸收塔内，吸收剂浆液与烟气充分接触混合，烟气中的二氧化硫与浆液 中的碳酸钙（或氢氧化钠）以及鼓入的氧化空气进行 化学反应从而被脱除，最终脱硫副产物为二水硫酸钙 即石膏。该技术的脱硫效率一般大于 95%，可达 98% 以上；SO₂排放浓度小于 100mg/Nm3，可达 50mg/Nm3 以下；单位投资大致为 150~250 元/kW；运行成本一 般低于 1.35 分/kWh。

将生石灰消化后引入脱硫塔内，在流化状态下与通入的烟气进行脱硫反应，烟气脱硫后进入布袋除尘 器除尘，再由引风机经烟囱排出， 布袋除尘器 除下的 物料大部分经吸收剂循环输送槽返回流化床循环使 用。该技术脱硫率略低于湿法，吸收剂利用率高，结 构紧凑，操作简单，运行可靠，脱硫产物为固体，无 制浆系统，无二次污染，脱硫塔体积小，投资省，不易堵塞。烟气中的 SO₂和几乎全部的 SO3，HCl，HF 等酸性成分被吸收而除去，生成 CaSO3·1/2H₂O、 CaSO4·1/2 H₂O 等副产物。该技术的脱硫效率一般大 于 95% ，可达 98% 以上；SO₂排放浓度一般小于100mg/m3，可达 50mg/m3 以下；单位投资大致为 15~20 万元/平方米；在不添加任何吸附剂及脱硝剂的条件下 运行成本一般低于 5~9 元/吨烧结矿。

采用新型低温催化剂，在 80~200℃的烟气排放温度条件下，将烟气中的 SO₂、H₂O、O₂ 选择性吸附在 催化剂的微孔中，通过活性组分催化作用反应生成。

适用范围：有色、石化化工、工业锅炉/炉窑（含民窑）

采用活性炭作为吸附剂，采用 惰性气体 循环加热脱附分流冷凝回收的工艺对有机气体进行净化和回 收。回收液通过后续的精制工艺可实现有机物的循环 利用。该技术对有机气体成分的净化回收效率一般大 于90%，也可达95%以上。单位投资大致为9~24万元/ 千（m3h-1），回收有机物的成本大致为700~3000元/吨

2.高效吸附- 脱附-(蓄热)催化燃烧VOCs 治理技术

利用高吸附性能的 活性碳纤维 、颗粒炭、蜂窝炭和耐高温高湿整体式分子筛等固体吸附材料对工业 废气中的VOCs进行富集，对吸附饱和的材料进行强 化脱附工艺处理，脱附出的VOCs进入高效催化材料 床层进行催化燃烧或蓄热催化燃烧工艺处理，进而降 解VOCs。该技术的VOCs去除效率一般大于95%，可 达98%以上。

采用吸附、解析性能优异的活性炭（颗粒炭、 活性炭纤维和 蜂窝状活性炭 ）作为吸附剂，吸附企业生 产过程中产生的有机废气，并将有机溶剂回收再利 用，实现了清洁生产和有机废气的资源化回收利用。 废气风量：800~40000m3/h，废气浓度：3~150g/m3。

采用优化配方的全Pd型 三效催化剂 ，以及真空吸附蜂窝状催化剂的定位涂覆技术，制备汽车尾气净化 器核心组件。真空涂覆技术可以精确控制催化剂涂覆 量，有效提高产品的一致性。全Pd催化剂配方根据发 动机型号不同其Pd含量约在1~3g/L范围内，较同种发 动机上用的普通Pd-Pt-Rh三效催化剂成本可降低50% 以上。利用该催化剂及涂覆技术生产的净化器对汽车 尾气中CO、HC和NOx的同时净化效果可大于95%， 催化剂寿命超过10万公里，达到相当于国VI以上的尾 气排放标准要求。

针对不同场所，采用风盘或/和组空不同的 中央空调系统 ，设置过滤器和净化组件，集成过滤、吸附、（光）催化、抗菌/杀菌等多种净化技术，实现室内温 度和空气品质的全面调节。

研制层状材料为载体负载银离子的抗菌剂，在保持很好的抗菌性能的同时解决了银离子在高温使用 时变色的问题。研制有机无机复合抗菌喷剂，对室内 常见的有害微生物，如大肠杆菌， 金黄色葡萄球菌， 白色念珠菌 ，军团菌有很好的抗菌效果，对枯草芽孢 杆菌也有很好的抑制作用。

适用范围：适用于散料生 产、加工、运 输、装卸等环 节，如矿山、 建筑、采石场、 堆场、港口、 火电厂、钢铁 厂、垃圾回收处理等场所。

环境大气通过采样系统采集后，进入浓缩系统，在低温条件下，大气中的挥发性有机化合物在空毛细 管捕集柱中被冷冻捕集；然后快速加热解吸，进入分 析系统，经色谱柱分离后被FID和MS检测器检测，系 统还配有自动反吹和自动标定程序，整个过程全部通 过软件控制自动完成。系统主要特点有：自然复叠电 子超低温制冷系统、自主研发的温度测量技术、双通 路惰性采样系统、去活空毛细管捕集、双色谱柱分离、 FID和MS双检测器检测。系统可以用于在线连续监 测，也可以用于应急检测（采样罐现场采样）。该系 统一次采样可以检测99种各类VOCs（碳氢化合物、 卤代烃、含氧 挥发性有机物 ），在较长时间内可以满 足我国环境空气中VOCs的监测要求。

利用多种快速接口组合，设计开发出具有自主知识产权的"大气细粒子及其气态前体物一体化的在线 监测系统"，实现细粒子水溶性化学成分及其气态前 体物的同步在线监测，包括：气态HCl、HONO、HNO3、H₂SO4，气溶胶中F-、Cl-、NO₂、NO3 、SO4 以及WSOC的分析，实现大气细粒子中多种元素快速在线检测。 设计开发出能够进行不同粒径段的细粒子样品成分 分析装置，用于解析大气细粒子的来源与转化过程， 为大气污染区域协同控制提供基础数据，为区域大气 细粒子污染调控措施的制定提供科学基础和监测技术。

3.大气中NOx及其光化产物一体化在线监测仪器及标定技术

利用光解技术和表面化学方法研发准确测量NO2的技术，与常规化学发光技术结合开发能够准确测定 NO、NO2、PAN和PPN的技术系统。集成所研制的动 态零点 化学发光法 测NO模块，光降解NO₂模块和钼催 化转化模块，制造一体化样机，样机可同时在线精确 测量大气样品中的NO、NO₂、NOy。为评估含氮大气 活性成分对O3产生贡献的准确测算和其产物的进一 步演化提供可靠的技术方法和适合国情的仪器设备产品。

针对区域 大气颗粒物 立体在线监测的技术需求，开展大气复合污染中细粒子及超细粒子物化特性的原位快速测定技术研究，基于"称重法"的振荡天平颗粒物质量浓度监测仪，完成大气PM2.5质量浓度的实时监测。

水煤浆代油洁净燃烧技术是把煤磨成细粉与水和少量添加剂混合成悬浮状高浓度浆液，像油一样采 用全封闭方式输送和储存，用泵输送，并用喷嘴喷入 锅炉炉膛雾化悬浮燃烧，燃烧效率高，它是一种以煤 代油的新技术。在制浆过程中要对煤净化处理。

适用范围：各种电站锅炉、工业锅炉、工业窑炉。 [6-7]

上海市市、区两级政府将实施电力绿色调度、重点工业企业限产限污或停产、停止建筑施工室外作业和道路开挖整修、易扬尘码头堆场停止作业、加强道路保洁、渣土车禁行、黄标车禁行、停驶30%党政机关和事业单位公务用车、禁止秸秆露天焚烧、禁止燃放烟花爆竹等应急减排措施。 [8]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
空气污染，又称为大气污染，按照 国际标准化组织（ISO）的定义，空气污染通常是指: 由于人类活动或自然过程引起某些物质进入大气中，呈现出足够的浓度，达到足够的时间，并因此危害了人类的舒适、健康和福利或环境的现象。 换言之，只要是某一种物质其存在的量、性质及时间足够对人类或其他生物、财物产生影响者，我们就可以称其为空气污染物；而其存在造成的现象，就是空气污染。 2017年10月27日， ...

# data[].attributes.body
【1.11】

1. 分享资料
2. 目前遇到的问题

想不到更多资料；搜不到自己想要的资料；资料的专业性，无法概括；小组成员缺席。
3. 细化问题，扩大资料搜集范围
4. 建议参考的二手资料
5.拍照！

# data[].attributes.headline
空气污染与人类呼吸系统疾病

# data[].attributes.subject
空气污染与人类呼吸系统疾病

# data[].attributes.body
世界卫生组织

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
世界许多地方的空气污染程度很严重。 全球十分之九的人呼吸被污染的空气 ，每年因空气污染造成的死亡人数达到700万人。由中风、肺癌和心脏病导致的死亡中高达三分之一缘于空气污染。

空气污染无处不在。无论你在哪里居住，都无法逃离。空气中的细微污染物突破我们的身体防线，深入我们的呼吸和循环系统，损害我们的肺部、心脏和大脑。

空气污染有两种主要类型：环境（室外）空气污染和室内空气污染，后者主要由在通风不良的地方使用明火或低效炉灶燃烧家用燃料（煤炭、木柴或煤油等）产生。由于空气具有流动性，室内和室外空气污染可以互相影响。

全球大约有30亿人仍然在明火和低效炉灶中使用固体燃料（如木柴、作物废弃物、木炭、煤炭和动物粪便）和煤油进行烹饪。其中大多数人家境贫寒，生活在低收入和中等收入国家。

每年近400万人因使用固体燃料和煤油烹饪造成的室内空气污染而过早死亡。妇女和儿童在室内的时间最长，受室内空气污染的影响也最严重。

为确保室内和住家周围的良好空气质量，《世卫组织室内空气质量指南：家用燃料燃烧》就燃料类型和有助于维护健康的技术以及有效传播和采用这些家用能源技术的策略，从健康角度提出了多项建议。这些建议借鉴了现有的世卫组织室外空气质量指南以及世卫组织关于特定室内污染物水平的指导意见。

影响人们最多的污染物是颗粒物，通常缩写为PM并用作空气污染的衡量标准。虽然直径为10微米或更小（≤PM ₁₀）的颗粒可以渗透并嵌入肺脏深处，但更加有损健康的则是那些直径为2.5微米或更小（≤PM 2.5）的颗粒。这些颗粒物非常小，只有人类头发直径的60分之一。

PM 2.5 可以透过肺屏障进入血液系统。对于这些颗粒物的长期暴露可能会加大罹患心血管和呼吸道疾病，以及肺癌的风险。

针对PM2.5，《世卫组织空气质量准则》设定的最高安全水平是年平均浓度为10微克/立方米或更低。为了鼓励城市减少空气污染，即使它们无法达到理想的安全水平，世卫组织也为它们制定了三个过渡目标，分别是：15微克/立方米（过渡目标3）；25微克/立方米（过渡期目标2）；35微克/立方米（过渡目标1）。 目前许多城市都超过了过渡目标1的最高水平。

臭氧是引发哮喘（或使病情恶化）的一个主要因素，二氧化氮和二氧化硫也可导致哮喘、支气管症状、肺部炎症和肺功能下降。

世界上90%以上儿童每天呼吸遭受严重污染的空气，使他们的健康和发展面临严峻风险。2016年，有60万名儿童死于因污染空气引起的急性下呼吸道感染。

儿童特别容易遭受空气污染影响的一个原因是，他们的呼吸速度比成人快，因此会吸收更多的污染物。此外，大脑和身体尚处于发育中的儿童的生活空间更接近地面，而一些污染物在此的浓度最高。

世卫组织题为 《空气污染与儿童健康：规定清洁的空气》 的报告研究了环境（室外）和家庭空气污染对世界儿童健康的严重影响，特别是在低收入和中等收入国家。报告阐明，如果孕妇暴露于受污染的空气，更可能过早分娩，并产下低出生体重的瘦小婴儿。

空气污染还会影响儿童的神经发育和认知能力，并可能引发哮喘和儿童期癌症。暴露于高水平空气污染的儿童在以后生命中罹患心血管病等慢性疾病的风险可能更高。

由世卫组织、联合国环境署和减少短期气候污染物的气候与清洁空气联盟联合发起的"生命呼吸"运动是一项全球运动，旨在更好地认识空气污染对我们的健康以及地球的影响，建立一个由公民、城市和国家领导人以及卫生专业人员组成的网络来推动社区变革，以改善我们呼吸的空气。

可以挽救生命并帮助拯救地球的行动包括提高车辆标准，优先考虑清洁的公共交通和促进身体活动的出行方式，以及采用更高效的炉灶和燃料替代品来烹饪、照明和供暖。

空气污染与气候变化密切相关。气候变化的主要驱动因素是燃烧化石燃料，这也是空气污染的主要原因。联合国气候变化问题会议警告称， 如果我们要将全球变暖幅度限制在1.5 o C，燃煤电力必须在2050年结束。否则，我们可能将在短短的20年里遇到严重的气候危机。

实现《巴黎协定》的目标意味着，到2050年仅通过减少空气污染便可在全球每年挽救大约100万人的生命。应对空气污染所带来的健康收益十分显著：在温室气体排放量最多的15个国家中，空气污染对健康的影响估计超过其国内生产总值的4%。

2018年10月30日至11月1日，世卫组织与合作伙伴在日内瓦举办了首届全球空气污染与健康大会，以提高人们对这一日益严峻的公共卫生挑战的认识，并分享有关空气污染的健康风险及其干预措施的的信息和工具，让世界团结起来共同致力于解决这一问题。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
空气污染如何损害我们的健康

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
世界许多地方的空气污染程度很严重。 全球十分之九的人呼吸被污染的空气 ，每年因空气污染造成的死亡人数达到700万人。由中风、肺癌和心脏病导致的死亡中高达三分之一缘于空气污染。 空气污染无处不在。无论你在哪里居住，都无法逃离。空气中的细微污染物突破我们的身体防线，深入我们的呼吸和循环系统，损害我们的肺部、心脏和大脑。 ...

# data[].attributes.headline
关于大气污染的社会机构或组织

# data[].attributes.subject
关于大气污染的社会机构或组织

# data[].attributes.body
Smart air

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Smart Air是一家小型社会企业，致力于为室内空气污染问题提供价格实惠，有实验数据支持的空气净化器。我们的教育沙龙横跨亚洲多个国家，旨在向大家传播空气污染的防护措施。

B Corp共益企业认证

Smart Air一直对人类和地球保持最高的社会和环境标准。2018年，Smart Air成了一个获得认证的B Corp。现在，可以用这个标志来证明我们一直努力让世界更美好。

Smart Air的故事

2013年1月，雾霾袭击北京,在中国做研究的美国 博士生Thomas Talhelm开始质疑"市面上的空气净化器为什么如此价高?" 经过一番研究，他用在淘宝上买的HEPA滤网绑在一个家用电风扇上，制成简易的空气净化器，并用 颗粒计数仪进行效果测试，然后把测试结果发布在自己的 博客 上。

我看到了一个需要解决的问题。
- Thomas Talhelm, Smart Air的创始人

几家媒体对Thomas的DIY净化器进行了报道， 北京能源网络 提出为他举办DIY空气净化器活动，让更多人用上物美价廉的DIY空气净化器。

举办过几次DIY活动之后，Thomas发现即使大家知道如何DIY净化器，但不少人反映"找不到合适的风扇"、"不知道哪里卖的HEPA滤网信得过"。于是Thomas与朋友Anna和Gus合作，在2013年9月创办了 "聪明空气" 网站，为大家提供尺寸合适的DIY净化器风扇和质量最优的HEPA滤网。

聪明空气一直坚持 数据、测试方法 的公开透明。我们想让更多人花更少的钱,就能在中国用上空气净化器，呼吸上洁净健康的空气。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Smart Air是一家小型社会企业，致力于为室内空气污染问题提供价格实惠，有实验数据支持的空气净化器。我们的教育沙龙横跨亚洲多个国家，旨在向大家传播空气污染的防护措施。 Smart Air一直对人类和地球保持最高的社会和环境标准。2018年，Smart Air成了一个获得认证的B Corp。现在，可以用这个标志来证明我们一直努力让世界更美好。 2013年1月，雾霾袭击北京,在中国做研究的美国 博士生Thomas Talhelm开始质疑"市面上的空气净化器为什么如此价高?" 经过一番研究，他用在淘宝上买的HEPA滤网绑在一个家用电风扇上，制成简易的空气净化器，并用 颗粒计数仪进行效果测试，然后把测试结果发布在自己的 博客 上。 我看到了一个需要解决的问题。 - Thomas Talhelm, Smart Air的创始人 几家 媒体对Thomas的DIY净化器进行了报道， 北京能源网络 提出为他举办DIY空气净化器活动，让更多人用上物美价廉的DIY空气净化器。 举办过几次DIY活动之后，Thomas发现即使大家知道如何DIY净化器，但不少人反映"找不到合适的风扇"、"不知道哪里卖的HEPA滤网信得过"。于是Thomas与朋友Anna和Gus合作，在2013年9月创办了 "聪明空气" 网站，为大家提供尺寸合适的DIY净化器风扇和质量最优的HEPA滤网。 聪明空气一直坚持 数据、测试方法 的公开透明。我们想让更多人花更少的钱,就能在中国用上空气净化器，呼吸上洁净健康的空气。

# data[].attributes.body
（ lika）

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
空气污染对动物有哪些影响

人类与其他动物共同生活在地球上，

然而人类的行为对大气造成

了巨大的污染，

在人类自身面对恶果的同时，

无辜的动物也会受到伤

害，那么空气污染对动物有哪些危害呢？

第一，空气污染对动物的危害与对人体的危害情况相似。动物和

人类共同生存在一个大气环境里。

空气污染对人类的伤害，

动物也不

能幸免于难。

凡是对人造成严重危害的大气污染事件，

对动物也产生

同样的危害和影响。

空气污染对动物的危害，

除污染物的直接侵入造

成伤害之外，还通过污染食品进入体内，导致发病和死亡。因为动物

没有能力去选择和鉴别某些剧毒性的食品，

所以它们将比人类更容易

遭受污染物的伤害和影响。

第二，空气污染主要是通过三条途径危害生物的生存和发育的：

一是使生物中毒或枯竭死亡，

二是减缓生物的正常发育，

三是降低生

物对病虫害的抗御能力。

根据有关文献报道，

美国一家炼钢石排放大

量的二氧化硫、三氧化二砷等废弃物，污染了厂区周围的牧草，牧草

中砷的含量达到

400ppm

，使周围

24

公里内的

3500

头羊，中毒死亡

625

头。蒙塔那州磷肥厂排放大量的氟化氢，使牧草中的氟含量达到

1000ppm

，引发牛的氟骨病，导致牛奶产量减少，繁殖能力降低。我

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
空气污染对动物有哪些影响 - 百度文库

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
空气污染对动物有哪些影响 人类与其他动物共同生活在地球上， 然而人类的行为对大气造成 了巨大的污染， 在人类自身面对恶果的同时， 无辜的动物也会受到伤 害，那么空气污染对动物有哪些危害呢？ 第一，空气污染对动物的危害与对人体的危害情况相似。动物和 人类共同生存在一个大气环境里。 空气污染对人类的伤害， 动物也不 能幸免于难。 凡是对人造成严重危害的大气污染事件， 对动物也产生 同样的危害和影响。 空气污染对动物的危害， 除污染物的直接侵入造 成伤害之外，还通过污染食品进入体内，导致发病和死亡。因为动物 没有能力去选择和鉴别某些剧毒性的食品， 所以它们将比人类更容易 遭受污染物的伤害和影响。 第二，空气污染主要是通过三条途径危害生物的生存和发育的： 一是使生物中毒或枯竭死亡， 二是减缓生物的正常发育， 三是降低生 物对病虫害的抗御能力。 根据有关文献报道， 美国一家炼钢石排放大 量的二氧化硫、三氧化二砷等废弃物，污染了厂区周围的牧草，牧草 中砷的含量达到 400ppm ，使周围 24 公里内的 3500 头羊，中毒死亡 625 头。蒙塔那州磷肥厂排放大量的氟化氢，使牧草中的氟含量达到 1000ppm ，引发牛的氟骨病，导致牛奶产量减少，繁殖能力降低。我

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
150秒完整展现pm2.5侵入人体全过程

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
150秒完整展现PM2.5侵入人体全过程

# data[].attributes.body
我有一个视频就是他只限制20 MB我明天把iPad带来