Major health effects of air borne suspended particulates matter are lung damage, bronchitis and lung cancer. Irritation of eye, nose and throat also persists. It is also major cause of reduced visibility.

Those potential health effects noted by Awanish are valid. When looking at health effects you need to understand properties such as particle size, chemical composition of particles, whether other types of contaminants are adsorbed onto those particles (for example PCBs are known to adsorb to different size fractions. These may all have potential health effects. 

One of the key pollutants under scrutiny here in the UK is PM2.5. Here's a link to it's mortality effects in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304641/COMEAP_mortality_effects_of_long_term_exposure.pdf

There's also a lot more information on the medical effects of air pollution here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/comeap-reports

Hope that helps!

Ben

I do not understand why this is the nth very elemental/basic question you pose here. It is your duty as a PhD / professor to do your own literature search first and then ask your peers dedicated questions on items that you have doubts about.

Did you for instance consult the WMO reports on air pollution FIRST?

correction

WHO reports

thanks to all for valuable information.

A last comment

The term is particulate matter not the plural matterS

Dear Vinesh

The size of the particle is a main determinant of where in the respiratory tract the particle will come to rest when inhaled. Larger particles are generally filtered in the nose and throat via cilia and mucus, but particulate matter smaller than about 10 micrometers, can settle in the bronchi and lungs and cause health problems. The 10 micrometer size does not represent a strict boundary between respirable and non-respirable particles, but has been agreed upon for monitoring of airborne particulate matter by most regulatory agencies. Because of their small size, particles on the order of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) can penetrate the deepest part of the lungs such as the bronchioles or alveoli.

Similarly, so called fine PM, (often referred to as PM2.5), tend to penetrate into the gas exchange regions of the lung (alveolus), and very small particles (< 100 nanometers) may pass through the lungs to affect other organs.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated in 2005 that "... fine particulate air pollution (PM(2.5)), causes about 3% of mortality from cardiopulmonary disease, about 5% of mortality from cancer of the trachea, bronchus, and lung, and about 1% of mortality from acute respiratory infections in children under 5 years, worldwide.".[

Best,

Ata

Harry,

I agree that there is a lot of literature on PM2.5 effect from WHO reports or other but emerging nanoparticles need to be discussed further.

Ultrafine particles (less than 100 nm) and manufactured nanoparticles from nanotechnology are not well covered by WHO reports. These issues need to be further discussed. They have been neglected quite substantially and need to be seriously addressed. I have started a question about emerging pollutants but almost nobody have answered demonstrating the low awareness of public and educated scientists about emerging pollutants. Airborne nanoparticles cause even more dramatic health effects than airborne particles > 100 nm.

Dr. Oberdoerster spend most of his life studying the health impact of nanoparticles on health and consequences are serious. Recently, Dr. Barbara Mahrer identified a mechanism by which nanoparticles directly enter the brain through olfactory nerve and cause dementia.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/people/20180430-guenter-oberdoerster

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/39/10797

No, Harry, science is not settled concerning airborne particles. WHO reports do not tell everything. Epidemiological studies are missing for nanoparticles impact, monitoring is needed, regulation, modelling, public and scientific awareness also are needed to be improved.

Harry,

I agree that there is a lot of literature on PM2.5 effect from WHO reports or other but emerging nanoparticles need to be discussed further.

Ultrafine particles (less than 100 nm) and manufactured nanoparticles from nanotechnology are not well covered by WHO reports. These issues need to be further discussed. They have been neglected quite substantially and need to be seriously addressed. I have started a question about emerging pollutants but almost nobody have answered demonstrating the low awareness of public and educated scientists about emerging pollutants. Airborne nanoparticles cause even more dramatic health effects than airborne particles > 100 nm.

Dr. Oberdoerster spend most of his life studying the health impact of nanoparticles on health and consequences are serious. Recently, Dr. Barbara Mahrer identified a mechanism by which nanoparticles directly enter the brain through olfactory nerve and cause dementia.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/people/20180430-guenter-oberdoerster

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/39/10797

No, Harry, science is not settled concerning airborne particles. WHO reports do not tell everything. Epidemiological studies are missing for nanoparticles impact, monitoring is needed, regulation, modelling, public and scientific awareness also are needed to be improved.

Alain

You do not have to convince me: work(ed) in UF for the last 25 years for instance in the ULTRA projects (see publications)

and then there is "soot" and a combiantion of the two. However the relation with health effects are less quantified than for PM in general which makes legislation more complex

Harry

Thanks for the info.

Although it is complex, in general, for cars, Europe has set limits for particle number

6.0x10 ^11/km (EURO-5 and EURO-6 standard) for all cars.

Aviation is the most important producer of nanoparticles from combustion and it would be easy to legislate. Banning sulfur and aromatic (PAH) emission from kerosene would decrease by 10 the number of particle (Kumar et al. 2010).

Is it the political will which is missing I think

Check paper by Rajagopalan et al 2018 jACC