Title: Scented products cause indoor air pollution on par with car exhaust
气味产品造成的室内空气污染与汽车尾气相当
Text:
hn link
Url:
https://newatlas.com/environment/indoor-air-pollution-scented-terpenes/
很抱歉，我无法直接访问或分析外部网站的内容，包括您提供的链接。不过，我可以根据您提供的标题和一般的背景知识来给出一个总结。
标题：“室内空气污染：香精油中的萜烯”
这个标题可能指的是一篇关于室内空气污染和香精油中萜烯成分的文章。以下是一个可能的总结：
随着人们对室内空气质量越来越关注，香精油因其天然的香味和被认为的净化效果而受到欢迎。然而，最近的研究表明，某些香精油中的萜烯成分可能会在室内环境中产生有害的空气污染。萜烯是一类天然存在的有机化合物，广泛存在于许多植物中，包括香精油。当这些萜烯在封闭空间中与氧气反应时，它们可以转化为臭氧和其他有害物质，这些物质对人类健康有潜在的危害。
文章可能讨论了以下内容：
1. 萜烯的来源和特性：萜烯广泛存在于植物中，是许多香精油的活性成分。
2. 室内空气污染问题：室内空气污染是一个全球性的问题，可能比室外空气污染更严重，因为人们大部分时间都在室内。
3. 萜烯在室内空气污染中的作用：当萜烯在室内环境中与氧气反应时，可能会产生臭氧和其他有害物质。
4. 对健康的影响：长期暴露于由萜烯引起的室内空气污染中，可能会对呼吸系统和其他健康问题产生不利影响。
5. 预防措施：文章可能提供了减少室内空气污染的建议，包括选择低萜烯含量的香精油，增加室内通风，以及使用空气净化器。
请注意，这只是一个基于标题的假设性总结，具体内容可能会有所不同。如果您需要关于该文章的具体信息，建议直接阅读原文。
Post by: clumsysmurf
Comments:
neilv: When I saw the title, I half-expected it to be this researcher: <a href="https://www.drsteinemann.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.drsteinemann.com/</a><p>I found her work years ago, when I had a suspicion of why I'd get headaches while folding laundry. A Web search turned up her papers, I stopped using dryer sheets and scented laundry detergent, and laundry-folding headaches stopped immediately.<p>Separately, it turned out a bunch of people and pets who had windows near the laundry room vents of my large condo building would get headaches and breathing problems from the exhaust. The complaints stopped down after most residents stopped using scented laundry products. Though IIUC, the dryer exhaust can still contain some nasties, just not as much as before.
neilv: 当我看到标题时，我有一半的预期是这个研究人员：<a href=“https:”www.drsteinemann.com:”rel=“nofollow”>https:/；www.drsteinemann</a> <p>几年前我找到了她的工作，当时我怀疑自己为什么要这样做；我叠衣服的时候会头疼。通过网络搜索找到了她的文件，我停止使用烘干机床单和有香味的洗衣粉，衣服折叠的头痛也立即停止了<p> 另外，事实证明，在我的大型公寓楼的洗衣房通风口附近有窗户的一群人和宠物会因为排气而头痛和呼吸困难。在大多数居民停止使用有香味的洗衣产品后，投诉停止了。虽然IIUC，但烘干机的废气中仍可能含有一些污垢，只是不像以前那么多。
jmward01: The challenge with any article like this is that the correlated impact on health outcomes is always implied in the article but is rarely studied as part of the research cited. Just because a is bad and b has a property similar to a that doesn't imply b has the same harmful impacts as a. I really wish articles would limit big headlines like this unless the research cited was directly comparing mortality and health outcomes directly. If the study this article was based on came to the conclusion that 'average household aerosol use has a similar associated mortality risk as average city car pollution' then the title could have been warranted but instead we got a bit of click-bait. A slightly better title could have been 'Scented products cause unexpected levels of indoor air pollution'. I'd even argue 'Scented products cause concerning levels of indoor air pollution' is a reasonable title since it is worth our concern and further study.
jmward01: 任何这样的文章的挑战在于，对健康结果的相关影响总是隐含在文章中，但很少作为引用研究的一部分进行研究。仅仅因为a是坏的，而b具有类似于a的属性；这并不意味着b和a有同样的有害影响。我真的希望文章能限制这样的头条新闻，除非引用的研究直接比较了死亡率和健康结果。如果本文所依据的研究得出以下结论：；平均家庭气溶胶使用具有与平均城市汽车污染类似的相关死亡风险；那么这个头衔本来是有道理的，但我们却得到了一些点击诱饵。一个稍微好一点的标题应该是；有香味的产品会造成意想不到的室内空气污染；。我；d甚至争论；有气味的产品会导致令人担忧的室内空气污染水平；这是一个合理的标题，值得我们关注和进一步研究。
seabass-labrax: I fully support research like this, because it's always good to get proper data about phenomena. However, I can't help feeling that the results are unsurprising: how could you smell the scented candles if they <i>weren't</i> producing nanoparticles? Surely the existence or abundance of these nanoparticles was never in question?
seabass-labrax: 我完全支持这样的研究，因为它；获取关于现象的准确数据总是有益的。但是，我可以；我不禁觉得结果并不令人惊讶：如果蜡烛没有香味，你怎么能闻到香味呢；t</i>产生纳米粒子？当然，这些纳米粒子的存在或丰度从未受到质疑？
xnx: On average, we inhale 20 lbs of air per day. This is greater by weight than the food or water we consume in a day. We should be paying a lot more attention to air quality.
xnx: 平均而言，我们每天吸入20磅的空气。按重量计算，这比我们一天消耗的食物或水还要多。我们应该更加关注空气质量。
drusenko: I am having a hard time reconciling the claim in the post headline with common sense.<p>One frustrating aspect to the study is that it was hard to determine whether they are comparing like for like per unit time. They say the “operation of a gas stove” and “running a generator” — but for how long? It doesn’t seem like they tested each of these things under similar conditions in their lab but rather relied on other studies for that data. Figure 2(b) right does seem to measure this but they haven’t labeled the chart with clear labels and the description is a bit ambiguous.<p>After reading the study, I think the issue is that the claim it is making is slightly different than the one in the headline. They are measuring VOC and ~PM2.5 pollutants, but gas engines (and gas stoves presumably as well) produce other pollutants like CO, which is what kills you of you run a gas generator indoors.
drusenko: 我很难将帖子标题中的说法与常识相协调<p> 这项研究的一个令人沮丧的方面是，很难确定它们是否在单位时间内进行同比比较。他们说“操作煤气炉”和“运行发电机”，但要持续多久？他们似乎并没有在实验室的类似条件下测试这些东西，而是依赖于其他研究来获取这些数据。右图2（b）似乎确实测量了这一点，但他们没有用清晰的标签标记图表，描述有点模糊<p> 在阅读了这项研究后，我认为问题在于它所做的声明与标题中的声明略有不同。他们正在测量挥发性有机化合物和PM2.5污染物，但燃气发动机（可能还有燃气灶）会产生其他污染物，如一氧化碳，这是杀死你的原因。如果你在室内运行燃气发电机。
