Closing classroom windows does not cut air pollution, study finds
A project called SAMHE (Schools' Air quality Monitoring for Health and Education) operated air pollution monitors in nearly 500 classrooms for an academic year and found that days with high outdoor pollution led to higher pollution inside the classrooms.
The Imperial College London researchers found that 6% of school days had outdoor particle pollution above the World Health Organization's daily guidelines and these days contributed 17% of the annual classroom pollution.
A project called SAMHE, led by at Imperial College London, operated air pollution monitors in nearly 500 classrooms for an academic year, and found that days with high outdoor pollution led to higher pollution inside the SAMHE classrooms. Six percent of school days had outdoor particle pollution above the World Health Organisation's daily guidelines, but these days contributed 17 percent of the annual classroom pollution.
Dr Alice Handy of the SAMHE team said: 'Reducing ventilation will not stop outdoor PM2.5 entering classrooms. We saw high levels of particle pollution in classrooms during the weekends around fireworks night when schools and classrooms were closed. Ventilation is also really important to lower carbon dioxide in classrooms, which is linked to attention and can reduce the risk of spreading infections.'
The good news is that school classrooms did provide a degree of protection against air pollution with average particle pollution measuring 30% less than outdoor air. Handy added: 'Relatively little of the particle pollution in classrooms seems to be generated there, most comes in from outdoor air.'
Over the school year, about 80% of the classroom pollution came from outside. At home, children can breathe in particle pollution from sources that include cooking, personal care products, wood burners and cigarettes. Pollution in schools can also be lower than on the journey to and from school. Research in London has shown that children who walk along busy roads or travel by car to school have the greatest exposure to traffic pollution.
Handy said: 'Our results show how important it is to continue with initiatives such as no-idling zones, school streets, and efforts to burn fewer fossil fuels, to clean up the air both inside and outside schools.'
The team tested out air filters and sensors in an additional 300 classrooms and found they reduced particle pollution by 29% compared with nearby schools in the main part of the SAMHE study.
Sign up to Down to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
Dr Samuel Wood of the research team said: 'We saw significant reductions, but outdoor air quality was still the leading driver of classroom particle pollution, even with filters installed. Air filters may be able to mitigate against some of the effects of poor outdoor air quality, but they are unlikely to remove them altogether.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
2 days ago
- ITV News
Chikungunya outbreak in China: What is the virus and is the UK at risk?
More than 7,000 cases of chikungunya, a mosquito-borne virus, have been recorded in southern China. Heavy rain and flooding in the country have worsened the outbreak, prompting Chinese authorities to distribute mosquito nets and spray streets, residential buildings and work sites with insecticide. Health experts warn there is a risk of the outbreak spreading internationally, including to Europe, where locally-acquired cases have been detected in France and Italy. What is chikungunya? Chikungunya is transmitted by mosquitoes and usually causes mild symptoms like fever, joint pain, headache, swelling or a rash. The virus, which was first detected in Tanzania in 1952, is transmitted by infected mosquitoes. Most patients will recover within a week or two without medical treatment. But in rare cases, chikungunya can cause debilitating joint pain that lasts for months or even years. "Although chikungunya is a nasty disease and there are outbreaks, it pales into significance when compared to dengue, which is transmitted by the same mosquito," said Professor Will Irving, an Emeritus Professor of Virology at the University of Nottingham. According to the World Health Organisation, severe cases and deaths were rare and mostly occurred in babies or elderly people with underlying health conditions. Where is chikungunya a problem? There are regular chikungunya outbreaks in Africa, Asia and the Americas with occasional small epidemics in Europe. The frequency of outbreaks has increased since 2000, partly due to climate change and urban expansion. As of July, there had been about 240,000 cases of chikungunya recorded this year, including 90 deaths in 16 countries, according to the European Centres for Disease Prevention and Control. The countries that reported the highest number of infections were Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina and Peru. There have been 49 locally-acquired cases reported in France this year and two in Italy. What is the risk in the UK? Dr Robert Jones from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there was currently no risk of contracting chikungunya in the UK. "The mosquitoes that transmit chikungunya are not established in the UK, although they are found in parts of southern Europe," he said. "Occasionally, imported cases are diagnosed in returning travellers, but these do not lead to local transmission." There have been a small number of cases reported in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in recent years, with most people acquiring the virus in South Asia and South East Asia. Has there been any change to travel advice? No, there has been no change to UK travel advice at the moment. If people are travelling to areas where there is an outbreak, there is a greater risk of them being bitten by an infected mosquito and acquiring the virus. They should take extra precautions, like using insect repellent, wearing long sleeves and trousers, and staying in accommodations with screened windows or air conditioning. The US has issued a travel advisory to its citizens against visiting China's Guangdong province, Bolivia and island nations in the Indian Ocean. Is there a vaccine or treatment? There are currently no antiviral treatments to treat chikungunya. The only way to prevent chikungunya is to avoid mosquito bites. There are two vaccines approved for use in the UK, including one which was approved in June. It is designed for people planning to travel to an area where there is an outbreak, but it may not be advised for children or people over the age of 60. What is China doing to stop the spread? The chikungunya outbreak has been mostly across the city of Foshan, in the southern province of Guangdong, near Hong Kong. Authorities have been handing out mosquito nets to residents and have started spraying insecticide across the city. Locals who do not empty bottles, flower pots or other outdoor receptacles, where water might accumulate and allow mosquitoes to breed, risk being fined and having their electricity cut off. The outbreak in South China is actually quite small as far as chikungunya outbreaks go, but it is the biggest recorded in mainland China. Overseas, there was an outbreak in La Réunion in 2006, which had an estimated 260,000 chikungunya cases, while India reported 1.3 million cases between 2005 and 2006. In 2013, the virus was introduced to Saint Martin Island in the Caribbean and over the next three years, cases were confirmed in almost 50 countries or territories in the Caribbean, Central America, South America, and North America, with more than one million suspected cases. Could chikungunya become a pandemic? Professor Will Irving doesn't think so. "Transmission requires the presence of the appropriate mosquito," he said. "However, with climate change, the mosquitoes are spreading, and there are reports of the mosquito being present in parts of Europe."
Daily Mirror
2 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Viral glasses said to naturally strengthen your eyes may do more harm than good
A viral trend on TikTok claims these particular glasses can "naturally strengthen" your eyes — but eye experts warn they may actually do more harm than good if proper precautions aren't taken. In a world brimming with misinformation, it's crucial to distinguish fact from fiction — especially when it comes to matters of health. Eye health is one such area of life that should not be messed with. It's vital not to compromise your ocular wellness, especially by blindly believing viral trends on the internet. One such viral trend is pinhole glasses. With over 45 million TikTok views touting pinhole glasses as a "natural" remedy for blurry vision and a method to "train" your eyes back to that coveted 20/20, it's more important than ever to debunk this social media myth before it causes serious harm. Despite the fact that more than 2.2 billion people worldwide suffer from some form of visual impairment — as per the World Health Organisation (WHO) — millions still prefer social media "hacks" over trusted eye care. Fortunately, experts at Overnight Glasses are dispelling the viral myth, which, while containing some truth, can cause more harm than good if misunderstood. Myth: 'Pinhole glasses can permanently strengthen your eyes' As the name suggests, pinhole glasses are spectacles with tiny holes punctured through their lenses. They are, in their essence, eyeglasses that have lenses full of tiny holes in a grid pattern. These glasses work by reducing the amount of light entering the eyes and limiting vision by obscuring part of the image in front of you. Individuals with a refractive error may notice improved vision while wearing pinhole glasses. Whilst contact lenses and regular spectacles redirect and focus light rays onto the retina, pinhole glasses are designed to restrict the volume of light entering the eye, which can prove beneficial in specific medical environments, particularly for individuals with myopia or astigmatism. Many individuals tend to initially discover pinhole glasses through alternative sources that market them as a remedy for myopia, astigmatism, and various other eye ailments. Although this remains a widely-held belief, there exists minimal scientific evidence to back such claims, and the US Federal Trade Commission prohibited American firms from promoting pinhole glasses in this manner as far back as 1993. Truth: Pinhole glasses cannot strengthen eye muscles Pinhole glasses function by obstructing indirect light beams and compelling light to travel solely through minuscule apertures, which enhances depth of field — similar to squinting. They can assist individuals with refractive issues in achieving clearer vision whilst wearing them, but not permanently. The experts at Overnight Glasses clarify: "Pinhole glasses do improve sharpness temporarily for some conditions, but they do not retrain the eye or fix the shape of the cornea. They're useful in eye exams, but you cannot strengthen eye muscles this way." And other eye experts are in agreement. The Singapore National Eye Centre has also debunked the myth that wearing pinhole glasses can train eyesight and reverse myopia, stating: "Myopia cannot be reversed and can only be managed by slowing down its progression. Currently, there is no known cure for myopia. Pinhole glasses are able to 'improve' the vision while using it but the field of vision is severely lost." WebMD explains that those with myopia or astigmatism may experience clearer vision whilst wearing pinhole glasses, but this effect disappears once the glasses are removed. A similar effect can be achieved simply by squinting. Given their limitation of blocking peripheral vision, pinhole glasses are entirely unsuitable for use outside controlled environments, and should certainly never be worn whilst driving. Furthermore, clinical studies have found that individuals using pinhole glasses for reading experienced excessive eye strain. Uses of pinhole glasses Pinhole glasses are a diagnostic tool utilised by optometrists. They help in identifying the root cause of an eye condition by refocusing and limiting light rays, particularly useful in diagnosing presbyopia. These glasses are often used in conjunction with an occluder, a device used to cover your eyes during an eye chart reading, aiding optometrists in pinpointing the source of an eye issue. The primary function of pinhole glasses is to lessen the amount of light your eye has to process. If using these glasses temporarily eases the discomfort in one or both of your eyes, it could provide a crucial clue about the underlying condition. Seeing the same with or without pinhole glasses could indicate amblyopia, also known as lazy eye. Moreover, pinhole glasses can be instrumental in detecting myopia in adults and older children. If someone complaining about their vision sees more clearly using pinhole glasses, this is a significant indicator of myopia. However, if their vision deteriorates while using the glasses, they could potentially have macular disease or opacities in the central lens. Alternatives to pinhole glasses Once pinhole glasses are taken off, an individual's sight reverts to its original state. There is no published or scientifically-accepted explanation suggesting that the effect would accumulate or persist once the glasses are removed. The lack of scientific proof for pinhole glasses as a method to enhance vision suggests they're likely best left to opticians. Conditions such as short-sightedness and astigmatism can be addressed with bespoke prescription glasses and contact lenses. Additionally, laser eye surgery (LASIK) has become a popular, semi-permanent solution for various eye issues, although it may not be suitable for everyone, according to WebMD. Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We'd love to hear from you!
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
We published a photo of a malnourished child in Gaza. It made an impact globally – and created controversy
Between April and mid-July this year, more than 20,000 children in Gaza were admitted to hospital for treatment for acute malnutrition, 3,000 of whom were severely malnourished, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a global initiative whose members include UN agencies such as the World Health Organization, World Food Programme and Unicef, as well as NGOs and research institutes. Over this period, and in the weeks since, the Guardian has published many images of hungry children, among them at least 20 shown in an emaciated condition. (It does so working to an editorial code that gives special protection to children, publishing on matters that may intrude into their welfare only when there is a strong public interest to do so.) But one photograph, which appeared on the homepage of the website on 23 July and on the front of the print edition the next day, prompted fierce controversy. The picture was powerful and pitiful: an 18-month-old boy, Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, cradled in his mother's arms; his bare back skeletal, his diaper a black plastic bag. This image, as well as others of the same child, were published widely by major news organisations. Freelance journalist and antisemitism campaigner David Collier accused the media that published the photos of doing so 'to push a lie about famine'. He said a May 2025 medical report he had seen stated the boy had cerebral palsy. This was not the face of famine, Collier wrote in his blogpost on 27 July, but a child who 'has needed specialist medical supplements since birth'. 'What we can see from [unpublished] pictures is that both Mohammed's mother and his older brother look healthy and are not suffering from any type of starvation that would be necessary to cause the thinness suffered by Mohammed,' he said. A reader who contacted me directly decried the image as 'a fake'. Another said: 'Definitely this poor child is suffering. But is it from starvation? It is from several medical conditions Muhammad was born with … You need to make sure your readers know the real 'WHY' behind this picture.' It seems unarguable that readers want to know the 'real why' in whatever they are seeing. But its availability is not always as straightforward. War is chaotic and individual circumstances invariably complex. In the wake of the accusations, Anadolu published an article that quoted Suzan Marouf, a doctor treating the boy at the Patient's Friends hospital in Gaza City, saying doctors there had diagnosed him the previous month with 'moderate malnutrition on top of congenital health problems, including brain complications and muscle atrophy' but that these issues were 'not significantly affecting his weight' until the hospital's nutritional supplements became depleted. Since then, he had developed severe malnutrition, she said. Separately, Anadolu distributed an image from Muhammad's bedside showing a picture of him before he lost weight. Muhammad's mother said he dropped from 9kg to 6kg in recent weeks. The Guardian was not aware until after it published the images (the first was in a picture gallery on 22 July) that the boy had other medical conditions. Should they have sought to ask? The relevant editors I have spoken to here each told me that seeing his wasted frame did not stand out as unusual; they had 'consistently seen similar pictures for months'. In a hunger crisis, they point out, experts attest to how children and those with existing medical conditions are among those most at risk. According to the WHO, of the 63 malnutrition‑related deaths recorded in July, 24 were children under five. That is 38%, when under-fives make up around 15% of the total population of Gaza. Children with developmental disorders can have special nutritional needs. One paediatrician, speaking to me for background, said diagnosis was frequently challenging in settings without access to early identification tools, which meant that with cerebral palsy, for example, definitive diagnosis is sometimes not made until the age of two. Editors say reference to Muhammad's existing health issues would have been included if known – and the picture captions have now been amended – but they consider that the images still stand, saying a sick child who is starving is 'not any less deserving of our attention than any other child', as previous reporting featuring malnourished infants with underlying feeding conditions has demonstrated. In other words, the face of malnourishment is most often the face of the already vulnerable. For my part, I agree that the missing information was relevant to a fuller reading of the picture. But the Guardian has not, as some claim, relied on this image alone to illustrate reporting of what the IPC days later termed (though Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejects the assessment) an 'unfolding' famine. And if we recognise that it is the most vulnerable who are most impacted by lack of food and health services, publication of this picture of real suffering did not, in my view, act to deceive. Elisabeth Ribbans is the Guardian's global readers'
