MacKenzie A.R.,Lancaster University |
Langford B.,Lancaster University |
Langford B.,UK Center for Ecology and Hydrology |
Pugh T.A.M.,Lancaster University |
And 32 more authors.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences | Year: 2011
We report measurements of atmospheric composition over a tropical rainforest and over a nearby oil palm plantation in Sabah, Borneo. The primary vegetation in each of the two landscapes emits very different amounts and kinds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), resulting in distinctive VOC fingerprints in the atmospheric boundary layer for both landscapes. VOCs over the Borneo rainforest are dominated by isoprene and its oxidation products, with a significant additional contribution from monoterpenes. Rather than consuming the main atmospheric oxidant, OH, these high concentrations of VOCs appear to maintain OH, as has been observed previously over Amazonia. The boundary-layer characteristics andmixing ratios ofVOCs observed over theBorneo rainforest are different to those measured previously overAmazonia.Compared with the Bornean rainforest, air over the oil palm plantation contains much more isoprene, monoterpenes are relatively less important, and the flower scent, estragole, is prominent. Concentrations of nitrogen oxides are greater above the agroindustrial oil palm landscape than over the rainforest, and this leads to changes in some secondary pollutant mixing ratios (but not, currently, differences in ozone). Secondary organic aerosol over both landscapes shows a significant contribution from isoprene. Primary biological aerosol dominates the super-micrometre aerosol over the rainforest and is likely to be sensitive to land-use change, since the fungal source of the bioaerosol is closely linked to above-ground biodiversity. © 2011 The Royal Society.
PubMed | University ofManchester
Type: Journal Article | Journal: British dental journal | Year: 2010
Encouraging dental prevention seems like a logical approach given that dental decay is a preventable disease and while the 2006 dental contract provides preventive opportunities, there is confusion about the best approach to the prevention of decay in those children that attend their dentist. Should we provide prevention for all children attending their dentist (the population approach) or should we target those children who are at greatest risk (risk assessment approach)?