City Cyclists Suck In Soot

Cyclist commuters in London had more than twice as much black soot in their lungs than did walking commuters. Amy Kraft reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Out of control drivers aren’t the only thing city cyclists have to worry about. New research suggests that cyclists are at increased risk of lung damage because of soot.

A study compared people who walk or bike to work, to see how much black carbon they were exposed to. And cyclists had more soot in their lungs than walkers.

The research was presented at the European Respiratory Society’s Annual Congress in Amsterdam on Sunday. [Chinedu Nwokoro et al., "Inhaled black carbon in the lower airways of London cyclists"]

Researchers at the London School of Medicine collected sputum samples from healthy non-smokers who walk or bike to see how much black carbon was in airway macrophages—a type of white blood cell that takes in foreign material. The analysis found that cyclists had 2.3 times more soot in their airway cells.

Cyclists take in more black carbon because they breathe faster and deeper than walkers. And they’re on the road, closer to exhaust fumes than sidewalk pedestrians are.

The ongoing study will address more questions about benefits and risks of healthy modes of transportation. But for now, I’d steer clear of high traffic areas.

—Amy Kraft

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe