It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, June 23, 2026
EU Commission’s draft legislation on pesticides: European researchers highlight the risks
This press release was originally published by the University of Freiburg.
The European Commission intends to reform key provisions governing the approval of pesticides through a new legislative package. Scientists from 27 European re-search institutions point out that the “Food and Feed Safety simplification package” weakens key safeguards in the approval process – with consequences for people and the environment.
The European Commission has presented a new legislative package. It is intended to reform key provisions that have hitherto governed the approval of pesticides. The “Food and Feed Safety simplification package” is part of a comprehensive strategy through which the Commission aims to simplify legislation in the European Union (EU) and reduce the administrative burden.
In an article published in the Policy Forum section of the prestigious journal Science, scientists from 27 European research institutions are now highlighting the risks posed by the new regulations. The group of authors, led by Dr Dimitry Wintermantel of the University of Freiburg and Dr Julia Osterman of the University of Gothenburg, point out that the planned reform would weaken key safeguards in the approval process. In their article, the researchers set out recommendations on how the EU could reduce the harmful effects of pesticides in the long term, whilst at the same time streamlining the approval process.
“The simplification package would largely do away with the periodic reassessment of active substances in pesticides and leave existing weaknesses in pre-market risk assessment unaddressed,” says Wintermantel. “This increases the risks posed by pesticides to biodiversity and human health. We believe that the package thus clearly undermines the precautionary principle and runs counter to European and international environmental protection objectives.”
Reassessment of active substances
At present, active substances in pesticides are generally approved at EU level for ten years. After this period, manufacturers can apply for renewal of approval and must submit data on the safety of the active substance. This is then subject to a fresh risk assessment.
The authors highlight that, under the simplification package, most active substances would be approved indefinitely, and the requirement for periodic reassessment would be removed. The problem here is that, once approval has been granted, there is neither systematic monitoring to identify pesticide risks nor a mechanism that would automatically trigger a review. Furthermore, this would result in a reversal of the burden of proof from the manufacturer to the authorities. “In practice, periodic reassessment has proved to be an important tool. “Since 2011, 59 active substances have not been granted new authorisation due to health or environmental concerns,” says Wintermantel.
Incorporation of scientific findings
Whilst the EU is responsible for the approval of active substances in pesticides, individual pesticide products are authorised at national level by the Member States. According to the authors, the simplification package would result in scientific evidence being taken into account to a lesser extent when authorising such products. To date, EU Member States have been required to take the current state of scientific knowledge into account. Although the package would not formally abolish this requirement, it would redefine it: in future, the state of knowledge at the time of the most recent EU active substance assessment would be deemed decisive, which – in the case of indefinite approval – could date back a long time.
Transitional periods for active substances whose approval has expired
If an active substance in a pesticide is not re-approved, products containing it may, under the current regulation, continue to be used up for up to 18 months. The simplification package extends this transitional period to up to three years – even if the active substance has lost its approval due to health or environmental concerns, provided these are not classified as immediate and serious.
“Contrary to the simplification proposal’s aim of promoting innovation, the proposal actually carries the risk of undermining incentives for innovation,” says Ostermann. “If older products remain on the market for longer and are no longer subject to periodic reassessment, the pressure to develop safer and more innovative alternatives is reduced.”
Recommendations for reform to promote environmental protection and efficiency
According to the authors, the current backlog in re-approval applications, caused by delayed assessments, could be cleared within three years through an annual investment of 15 million euros. Furthermore, in order to speed up assessments and ensure high standards of protection, applicants should not be allowed to choose which Member State assesses their pesticides. Instead, the EU should allocate this task on the basis of expertise. The EU must standardise assessment criteria and clearly place the burden of proof on pesticide manufacturers.
Furthermore, regulatory studies should be made publicly available to enable independent research. To identify potential risks following authorisation, application data should be linked to existing monitoring programmes – for example, those relating to pollinators. Farmers are already collecting such application data. Furthermore, pesticide residues in the environment should be measured more extensively. Joint analysis of this data would identify pesticides with a high-risk potential and enable targeted follow-up investigations.
The authors conclude that these measures would make the approval of pesticides more scientifically sound, transparent and efficient, without undermining the precautionary principle or European environmental protection objectives.
Original publication: Dimitry Wintermantel et al., EU Omnibus proposal increases pesticide risks. Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.aeg8744(Online first publication).
Dr Dimitry Wintermantel is a research associate at the Chair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology at the University of Freiburg. His research lies at the interface between the ecology of pollinating insects and the risk assessment of plant protection products. His research focuses on how pesticides affect bees and other insects, as well as the pollination services they provide.
Dr Julia Osterman is a researcher at the University of Gothenburg. She examines the role of pollinators in food production and how agriculture can become more pollinator-friendly.
The authors received funding by the European Union’s Horizon Europe, and Horizon 2020 (research and) innovation programs under grant agreements: nos. 101135238 (“WildPosh”; D.W., D.K., T.D.B., M.J.F.B., A.-M.K., A.K., D.M., R.J.P., S.G.P., M.R., S.T., J.O.), 101135005 (“PollinERA”; J.K., A.F., M.R., F.S., C.J.T.), 101181169 (“VALOR”; T.D.B., A.-M.K., S.G.P., M.R.), 101181146 (“AGRI4POL”; T.D.B., A.-M.K., S.G.P., A.J.V.), 101082102 (“RestPoll”; D.W., D.K., J.K., T.D.B., A.-M.K., S.G.P., M.R., J.O.), 101057014 (“PARC”; A.F., P.N.O., M.R., R.B.S.), 101003476 (“Safeguard”; T.D.B., M.J.F.B., D.M., A.J.V., S.G.P.), 10068544 (“Better-B”; R.J.P.), 862568 (“SPRINT”; L.H.-F., A.R., J.R.), 773921 (“PoshBee”; D.W., T.D.B., M.J.F.B., A.G., A.-M.K., J.R.M., D.M., R.J.P.), 812880 (“Nowelties”; A.S.); and European Union Biodiversa+ 2023 BiodivNBS grant 2024-00900 (“DEFEND-BIO”; C.I.-L.), Swedish Research Council Formas grant: 2022-697 01684 (C.I.-L.) and 2024-00298 (J.O.); Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement (A.S.); and Strategic Research Area “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in a Changing Climate” BECC funded by the Swedish government (J.K., M.R., D.S., J.O.).
US biomedical innovation leadership at risk: New data show China rapidly closing gap as clinical trials and manufacturing migrate abroad
New Cure Innovation Index evidence-based analyses and expert survey find U.S. retains its scientific edge but is losing the race to translate discoveries to cures
The U.S.-China Biotech Competitiveness Scorecard: Where Each Country Leads, across 35 metrics in six dimensions of end-to-end innovation. Visit the Cure Innovation Index U.S.-China Biotech Competitiveness Scorecard report for the complete findings and methodology from five Cure Innovation Index analyses:
a survey of senior U.S. industry and academic leaders fielded in June 2026
three bibliometric studies of the top 10 biomedical research institutions in each country
a clinical trial infrastructure and commercial embeddedness analysis across U.S. and Chinese institutions.
NEW YORK, June 22, 2026. — The United States still leads China in the quality and commercial reach of its biomedical science but is losing the race to translate scientific discoveries into cures. New analyses from the Cure Innovation Index, released today ahead of Cure's session on U.S.-China biomedical competitiveness at the BIO International Convention in San Diego, find that without immediate renewed investment and policy changes, the U.S. scientific edge will not hold.
“America’s challenge is no longer discovery alone. The emerging battleground is translation, the speed and efficiency with which scientific breakthroughs move from the laboratory into development, commercialization, and patient impact," said Seema Kumar, CEO of Cure, the premier healthcare innovation ecosystem headquartered in New York City. "If the United States wants to stay ahead, the answer isn't to out-publish China. It's to fix the translational bottlenecks with renewed funding, especially for early translational work, modernized clinical trial infrastructure, and stronger bridges between academic research and industry."
Cure’s new findings stem from five Cure Innovation Index analyses: a survey of U.S. industry and academic leaders, three bibliometric studies of the top 10 biomedical research institutions in each country, and a clinical trial infrastructure and commercial embeddedness analysis across U.S. and Chinese institutions.
The U.S.-China Biotech Competitiveness Scorecard: Where Each Country Leads
Cure’s survey of senior U.S. industry and academic leaders, fielded in June 2026, shows their perceptions of both the competitive picture and the prescription for maintaining U.S. leadership.
72 percent said China’s biomedical sector is improving faster than the United States’
85 percent said the U.S. lead will last 10 years or less.
74 percent cited declining U.S. federal research funding as the top threat to U.S. biomedical leadership, rather than any single Chinese competitive move.
76 percent expect more R&D to shift outside the United States if current trends continue.
"The experts are telling us the same thing the data are telling us," Kumar said. "We have the science and the commercial ecosystem. What we are missing is the sustained investment in translation, backed by the federal funding that makes that possible. This is not a story about who leads today. It is about who leads in 10 years. Right now, that is an open question, and the U.S. only stays in front if it treats market translation as seriously as it treats discovery."
“America’s scientific leadership and discovery capabilities are our greatest strategic assets. To protect and expand that leadership, we need a coordinated national strategy that strengthens the full innovation continuum, from NIH-funded discovery to translational development, national clinical trial infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, resilient supply chains, and global talent. Discovery alone will not secure leadership; execution, infrastructure, and coordinated investment will,” said Vanessa Almendro Navarro, PhD, MBA, Chief Commercial Officer, City of Hope.
Cure asked respondents to assess the two countries across 35 metrics in six dimensions of end-to-end innovation. As reported in the Cure Innovation Index U.S.-China Biotech Competitiveness Scorecard, respondents gave the United States decisive advantages in three dimensions: capital formation and commercialization, technology transfer, and talent. China received decisive leads in two dimensions: clinical development and supply chain infrastructure.
Scientific discovery, the sixth dimension, was effectively viewed as a tie. While the United States continues to lead in several frontier technologies and citation impact, China now matches the U.S. overall in discovery-related capabilities, underscoring how rapidly the competitive landscape has evolved.
“When it comes to saving lives and curing diseases, there should be no competition, only cooperation,” said Alex Zhavoronkov, PhD, CEO, Insilico Medicine. “But if you want to compete with China, it is important to set up local presence and compete with China in China. Without having a very efficient local discovery engine that takes full advantage of the local infrastructure and highly-qualified talent which likes to work only for top companies in the field, it is impossible to compete with the locally-brewed companies.”
Zhavoronkov, whose company recently went public on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, added “China is the world’s UFC of drug discovery - the ultimate gym where every dollar, every month, every quality metric counts and is used for competitive advantage. If you can win in China - you can win everywhere in the world and you can really win against diseases.”
U.S. leads on citation impact and novelty. China leads on volume and scale
Clinical Development
0
7
China dominates on speed, cost, trial scale, and IND timelines
Technology Transfer
5
0
U.S. leads decisively on TTO sophistication and industry collaboration
Capital & Commercialization
5
0
U.S. leads on VC, regulatory credibility, and BD ecosystem
Supply Chain
0
6
China leads on manufacturing scale, CDMO capacity, and raw materials
Talent
5
0
U.S. leads on attracting, retaining, and developing scientific talent
Total Metric Scores (of 35)
19
16
Overall (6 Dimensions)
3
2
1 Tie (Scientific Discovery)
U.S. Influence Advantage Widening in Frontier Science, Industry Engagement
U.S. and Chinese biomedical research institutions are now operating at comparable publication scale, but the volume does not translate to comparable scientific influence, Cure’s bibliometric analysis found.
U.S. and Chinese institutions now publish at a nearly identical annual per-institution volume (43,562 for U.S. and 43,532 for China), but U.S. institutions generate scientific influence at a rate 31 percent higher than Chinese peers, as measured by the Mean Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), a field- and year-normalized metric developed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The analysis involved an examination of more than 200,000 papers published from the top 10 biomedical research institutions in each country between 2020 and 2024.
“China has effectively closed the biomedical publication scale gap with U.S. elite institutions, a remarkable achievement over the 2020 to 2024 window,” noted Kumar. “However, the scientific influence of U.S. publications persists and widens in frontier biomedical domains that will define next-generation medicine.”
Of the four frontier biomedical domains that Cure examined, U.S. institutions lead China with a 45 percent RCR in CRISPR and gene editing publications, 60 percent RCR in RNA therapeutics, and 90 percent RCR in CAR-T and cell therapy. For AI drug discovery publications, the U.S. leads with a 52 percent RCR, yet China leads in volume, which is the closest competitive volume gap of the four domains and reflective of China’s building of AI research capacity.
"AI doesn't favor incumbents. It favors whoever deploys it fastest. China is moving with speed and intentionality. The U.S. has stronger foundational science — but whether that translates into a sustained lead depends on how quickly its institutions modernize around it,” said Jue Wang, PhD, Vice President and Global Head of Business Development, Insilico Medicine. “The real question isn't whether AI will reshape global biotech leadership. It's whether science and industry can move fast enough together to realize that potential and unlock its full potential for patients.”
Cure's separate industrial engagement analysis directly measured the extent to which academic research is embedded in commercial development. It examined the volume of papers from 2020 to 2025 by the same top 20 institutions that had industry-based co-authors. U.S. institutions were nearly three times more commercially connected than their Chinese counterparts, with respective rates of 9.0 percent vs. 3.3 percent co-authorship. This structural gap has remained stable for six consecutive years despite China's rapid publication scale-up.
The Translation Gap: Clinical Trials Are Already Migrating Away from the U.S.
The Cure Innovation Index’s starkest finding, China's 7-to-0 advantage on clinical development metrics, reflects the speed and scale of China's clinical development advantage. A Cure Innovation Index analysis of U.S. clinical trial infrastructure helps explain the domestic side of this gap.
Among U.S. research universities tracked by the Index, institutions affiliated with the NIH's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) network run a median of 64 Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials annually. The median non-CTSA university runs just one. That 64-to-1 ratio captures the translational bottleneck in a single number, Kumar noted.
A new publication from the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, with which Cure has no affiliation, reports outcomes of a March 2026 early-stage drug development roundtable supported by BIO, provides corroborating data:
China's share of global clinical trial starts has grown from 1 percent in 2009 to 32 percent in 2025, nearly matching the United States' 35 percent share.
Early discovery-to-IND cycles in China are estimated to be 50 to 70 percent faster than in the rest of the world.
Phase 1 trials cost an estimated 50 to 60 percent less in China.
Chinese biopharmaceutical companies now account for about one-third of new compounds entering the U.S. pipeline.
“The next era of biopharma innovation will not be defined by geography, but by the ability to combine the best capabilities across ecosystems,” said Yan Ling, PhD, Executive Director, Head of Research Innovation China, Takeda. “The U.S. brings science, capital, regulatory credibility, commercialization, with global access. China brings speed, scale, clinical execution, manufacturing depth, and a growing innovation pipeline. Linking these strengths across discovery, translation, development, and manufacturing can build more resilient pathways and accelerate innovative medicines to patients.”
What Leaders Say Needs to Happen
The Cure survey and analyses reveal the most urgent levers for maintaining U.S. biomedical leadership: protect discovery, accelerate translation, and strengthen competitiveness. As stated in the Reagan-Udall Foundation report, "without deliberate investment and direction, the U.S. will continue to lose Phase 1 programs to countries that have made precisely that investment."
Protecting discovery requires restoring NIH and federal research funding, which 81 percent of Cure survey respondents identified as the single highest policy priority. Moreover, 61 percent called for expanding translational funding programs specifically.
Accelerating translation means expanding dedicated translational funding programs and modernizing U.S. clinical trial infrastructure to bring the speed, cost efficiency, and patient access that have allowed China to claim 32 percent of global trial starts in less than two decades.
Strengthening competitiveness over the long term requires rebuilding domestic biomanufacturing and supply chain capacity and enacting policies that attract and retain the scientific talent on which U.S. leadership ultimately depends. Fifty-two percent of the survey respondents ranked improving talent and immigration policies as second only to funding priorities. Modernizing clinical trial infrastructure was a priority for 50 percent of respondents, with strong support from industry respondents (62 percent).
"The data make clear that the United States has a real and durable scientific edge. But that edge is not self-sustaining," said Kumar. "We are not losing because China has better science. We are losing because we have underinvested in the infrastructure that moves science into medicine. Restoring that investment is not just a research priority. It is a national security and economic imperative. The window to act is open, but it will not stay open."
About the Cure Survey Methodology
Cure fielded the U.S.-China Biotech Competitiveness Survey fielded from June 11 to 17, 2026, to senior leaders in biomedical industries and U.S. academic research. The 117 respondents split nearly evenly between industry (61) and academia (54) including chief executive officers, founders, chief scientific officers, business development directors, and technology transfer leaders.
The United States has long assumed global leadership in biomedical innovation. How will it continue to retain its edge? China has dramatically accelerated its research output, clinical trial volume, and pharmaceutical pipeline, producing raw materials, creating drug discovery platforms, and commercializing world-class therapies while competing head- to-head in licensing and BD. Drawing on the Cure Innovation Index and a new survey of U.S. academics and industry leaders, moderator Seema Kumar will debut a U.S./China innovation scorecard to reveal the strengths, opportunities, and strategies driving stakeholders in each country's end-to-end innovation engine. Bringing together voices from industry, government, and academia, this session delivers data, debate, and actionable insights for institutions, investors, and industry to stay competitive.
Moderator: Seema Kumar, CEO, Cure
Panelists:
Vanessa Almendro Navarro, PhD, Chief Commercial Officer, City of Hope
Yan Ling, PhD, Executive Director, Head of Research Innovation China, Takeda Pharmaceuticals
Jue Wang, PhD, Vice President and Global Head of Business Development, Insilico Medicine
About the Cure Innovation Index
The Cure Innovation Index is the first data-driven framework to measure how effectively U.S. biomedical institutions translate scientific discovery into real-world healthcare solutions and treatments.
Launched in April 2026, the Index sets a new standard for measuring translational performance that reflects its real and potential positive impact on patients, the healthcare system, and the broader economy. Unlike traditional metrics, which focus on individual outputs, the Index evaluates the full set of factors required to move innovation from discovery to early research to clinical and commercial impact.
The Cure Innovation Index is built on a proprietary methodology that evaluates 25 indicators across three core domains: Research Capabilities, Entrepreneurial Readiness, and Market Translation. Together, these domains capture the structural, operational, and cultural factors that enable institutions to convert scientific breakthroughs consistently and reliably into therapies, companies, and measurable health impacts.
The Index ranks the top 303 academic institutions, selected from more than 6,000 nationwide, and represents all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The Index also provides peer-benchmarked comparisons and customized improvement recommendations, making translational performance visible, comparable, and actionable.
About Cure
Cure is the premier healthcare innovation ecosystem that provides knowledge, infrastructure, and tools to accelerate progress toward cures. Headquartered in New York City, Cure convenes all key stakeholders for innovation across its physical and digital community. The campus houses flagship event venues and is home to healthcare organizations from idea stage to public companies. Cure members gain access to premium opportunities and curated connections. In 2026, The Cure Innovation Index was published, providing unmatched visibility into how research institutions translate breakthrough science into real-world health impact. Innovate with Cure at wewillcure.com.
This is the first page of Cure's 14-page U.S.-China Biotech Competitiveness Report. Download the complete Cure Innovation IndexU.S.-China Biotech Competitiveness Scorecard report for the rich data visuals of findings and methodology.
The United States leads China in the quality, commercial depth, and frontier intensity of its biomedical science. China leads in the speed, scale, and cost of converting science into medicines. Five Cure Innovation Index analyses map both sides of this divide and where the race will be decided:
a survey of senior U.S. industry and academic leaders fielded in June 2026
three bibliometric studies of the top 10 biomedical research institutions in each country
a clinical trial infrastructure and commercial embeddedness analysis across U.S. and Chinese institutions.
Credit
Cure Innovation Index
Unknown controller of women's health, wellness discovered
The University of Virginia School of Medicine's Hui Li, PhD, and colleagues have discovered a previously unknown controller of women's health -- a "chimeric" form of RNA found only in women.
Strange “chimeric” RNA once thought to be the product of cancer is actually an important controller of women’s health, including influencing their susceptibility to infectious disease and autoimmune disorders, new University of Virginia School of Medicine research suggests.
UVA’s Hui Li, PhD, and colleagues have identified a chimeric RNA called UBA1-CDK16 that is found only in women. This RNA plays important roles in their blood cell development and in determining the severity of diseases such as COVID-19, the scientists found. The findings could open the door to blood tests to help diagnose diseases or identify women at greatest risk for bad outcomes.
“Chimeric RNAs are RNA molecules composed of parts from different genes,” said Li, of UVA’s Department of Pathology and the UVA Comprehensive Cancer Center. “They were once believed to be cancer-specific. However, our research shows that they can also be part of normal physiology and play important roles in human health.”
Powerful Chimeras
RNA provides instructions for our cells, telling them what to do based on the genetic material, called DNA, that we inherit from our parents. Chimeric RNAs were long thought to be mistakes, as they are made up of instructions mashed together from different genes. This is why they were believed to be a byproduct of cancer; cancer itself is the result of cellular copying mistakes.
Li’s discovery, however, suggests that UBA1-CDK16 plays important roles in maintaining women’s health and in controlling their immune systems. This chimeric RNA is found only in women because women have two X chromosomes, while men have an X and Y. Normally, one of the two X chromosomes found in women’s cells are inactive. But Li found that the inactive X chromosome produces this peculiar chimeric RNA that he could identify in women’s blood.
Based on his findings, Li believes UBA1-CDK16 plays an important role in regulating blood cell formation. But his work also suggests the chimera may play an important role in the immune system’s response to infection. He found that the chimeric RNA was lost in 50% women who developed severe COVID-19 infections, while it was present in women who were asymptomatic. Further, the decrease in chimeric RNA correlated with the increasing severity of the infection.
Li suspects that the chimeric RNA may play an important role in governing the development of immune cells called neutrophils that act as the body’s first responders to infection. (Neutrophil count has already been identified as a way to predict how patients will fare against COVID-19.)
“As humans share similar number of genes with fruit flies and worms, gene number does not explain why we are much more sophisticated than these lower organisms” Li said. “We believe chimeric RNAs are another means to expand the functional genome, without an actual increase in gene number.”
Li’s findings suggest that the chimeric RNA also may serve as a natural brake to protect women from excessive autoimmune activity. Women are far more likely to suffer autoimmune disorders than men, and Li is urging additional research to better understand the role chimeric RNA could be playing – and how it could be targeted to improve patient outcomes.
“This finding highlights there is another layer of control for gene expression,” Li said. “These chimeric RNAs may represent a hidden repertoire for biomarkers and therapy targets as well.”
Findings Published
The researchers have published their findings in the scientific journal Science Advances. The research team consisted of Xinrui Shi, Loryn Blackburn, Sandeep Singh, Martyna Glowczyk-Gluc, Anam Tajamma, Shafaque Zahra, Shailesh Kumar, Robert Cornelison, Chen Liang, Fujun Qin, Aiqun Liu, Shitong Lin, Yue Tang, Justin Elfman, Thomas Manley, Timothy Bullock, Doris M. Haverstick, Peng Wu and Li. The scientists have no financial interest in the work.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, grant R01GM132128.
To keep up with the latest medical research news from the School of Medicine and UVA’s new Paul and Diane Manning Institute of Biotechnology, bookmark the Making of Medicine blog at https://makingofmedicine.virginia.edu.
Researchers from Tampere University and the University of Helsinki have identified an unexpected chemical process that may influence the formation of air pollution particles in urban environments. The study shows that nitric oxide (NO) – a pollutant primarily emitted by vehicles, power plants and other combustion sources – can promote the formation of aerosol particles, challenging a long-standing assumption in atmospheric science.
Air pollution particles are harmful to human health, reduce visibility – for example, in traffic – and affect the weather and climate. Understanding how these particles form in the atmosphere is essential for improving air quality predictions and developing effective pollution control strategies.
For many years, atmospheric scientists have considered nitric oxide to be a compound that suppresses the formation of low-volatility condensable vapours that can contribute to aerosol formation. However, the new study demonstrates that the opposite can occur for an important group of urban pollutants, such as aromatic carbonyl compounds.
“Traditionally, NO has been viewed as a compound that limits the formation of atmospheric aerosol precursors. Our results show that it is more likely to enhance their formation from certain volatile compounds,” says doctoral researcher Shawon Barua from Tampere University.
The researchers investigated the behaviour of aromatic carbonyl compounds in the atmosphere following their release from sources such as vehicle emissions, industrial activities and a range of consumer products. Using advanced laboratory experiments and computational modelling, the team identified a previously overlooked chemical pathway that rapidly converts these compounds into aerosol precursors.
“Our findings reveal that the chemistry of urban air is more complex than previously assumed. To accurately predict future air quality, we need to understand all the chemical pathways that contribute to particle formation,” says Dr. Avinash Kumar from Tampere University.
The discovery is particularly relevant for urban environments, where aromatic pollutants and nitrogen oxide emissions often coexist. The newly identified pathway may therefore play an important role in the formation of particulate matter in cities around the world.
Despite decades of research, the formation of aerosol particles, the most detrimental aspect of air pollution, remains poorly understood in urban environments.
“Sequential oxidation reactions between common air pollutants, such as those highlighted in this study, have been missing from the existing model chemistries and may go a long way towards explaining why predicting urban aerosol loads has been so difficult,” says Professor Matti Rissanen from Tampere University. He believes the findings will help scientists improve atmospheric models used to predict air quality and assess the impacts of air pollution on human health and the climate.
