Ultrafine particles from planes put millions of people across the UK at risk of serious health conditions

Around six million people - or around 9% of the UK population - that live within a 20km radius of London Gatwick, Stansted, Heathrow and Manchester airport are being exposed to ultrafine particles from aviation, new research by CE Delft and commissioned by T&E finds. In Europe as a whole, 52 million people are affected by the 32 busiest airports.

The exposure to ultrafine particles can be linked to the development of serious and long-term health conditions, including respiratory problems, cardiovascular effects and pregnancy issues. Exposure to ultrafine particles may be associated with 280,000 cases of high blood pressure, 330,000 cases of diabetes, and 18,000 cases of dementia in Europe, according to the new research. The study extrapolated reported cases of these illnesses around Amsterdam Schiphol airport and gives the first-ever estimate of health effects linked to aviation-related UFPs in Europe.

Ultrafine particles are particularly concerning because they penetrate deeply into the human body and have been found in the blood, brain and placenta. UFPs are below the size of 100 nanometres in diameter - approximately 1,000 times smaller than a human hair. To date, there is no specific regulation on safe levels of UFPs in the air, even though the World Health Organisation warned it was a pollutant of emerging concern over 15 years ago.

UFPs from planes are not only emitted at high altitudes, but also at take-off and landing meaning residents living near airports are particularly affected. People living within a 5km radius of an airport breathe in air that contains, on average, anything from 3,000 to 10,000 ultrafine particles per cm3 emitted by aircraft. By comparison, people living in busy city centres are exposed to similar ranges of ultrafine particles - 3,000-12,000 particles per cm3 - so planes are exposing people to the same levels of ultrafine particles are those living in busy urban centres.

Using ‘better quality’ jet fuel, though, can reduce UFPs by up to 70%, the study finds. The amount of UFPs emitted from planes depends largely on the composition of the fuel. The cleaner the aviation fuel, the less pollution it generates when burnt. Cleaning this fuel happens through a process called hydrotreatment. It has been used for decades to remove sulphur from fuels for cars and ships fuels and could cost less than five pence per liter of fuel. But jet fuel standards for planes have never been improved, even though it can significantly reduce air pollution around airports.

Other measures to reduce UFPs and improve air quality include reducing air traffic and aviation’s exponential growth, as well as using cleaner technologies like sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) and zero-emission aircraft that release much fewer pollutants.

Matt Finch, UK Policy Manager at Transport & Environment, said:

“This is a hidden health crisis. Governmental failure to address the spiralling growth of the aviation sector means that more and more people are suffering. The dirty fumes caused by planes can be drastically reduced if we simply clean up the fuel - which could be done for a few pence per litre. We cleaned up road transport decades ago, but the aviation industry, as ever, has been dragging its feet. While it might pride itself on “cutting-edge technology” and “increasingly efficient planes”, it continues to use dirty fuels with devastating impacts. Once again it’s a case of prioritising profits rather than pollution.”

Tim Johnson, Director at the Aviation Environment Federation, said:

“Communities living around airports have been raising the alarm around air pollution for years and this report vindicates their position that more should be done. With public health already impacted by exposure to aircraft noise, UFPs from aircraft create yet another environmental health concern. A UK-wide review of air pollution at airports is long overdue, with the last evaluation taking place over 20 years ago. There is an immediate opportunity for intervention, with options such as hydrotreating fuels or reducing air traffic providing dual climate and health benefits. Ultimately, this is another reason why airport expansion is irresponsible at this time. Any expansion will only lead to greater air pollution and therefore a greater number of people negatively affected.”

Henry Gregg, Director of External Affairs at Asthma + Lung UK, said:

“This new study from Transport & Environment is deeply worrying for the health of Londoners and anyone living near an airport across the UK. Air pollution is the biggest environmental threat to public health and contributes to up to 43,000 early deaths every year in the UK. We need more government action to address and reduce the health impact of air pollution emissions to help all Londoners breathe cleaner air, including the estimated 580,000 people living with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) across Greater London.”

ENDS