1 . Air pollution remains a critical health risk in the European Union, claiming over 500,000 lives in 2021, with findings suggesting nearly half of these could have been prevented if pollution were reduced to levels recommended by health experts. Data from the European Environment Agency (EEA) show that of these deaths, 253,000 were linked to exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) going beyond the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guideline limit of 5 micrograms per cubic meter. These particles are especially dangerous as they can pass into the bloodstream and affect various organs. Nitrogen dioxide and ozone also contributed to the mortality (死亡频率) statistics, associated with 52,000 and 22,000 deaths respectively. The EU’s environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevicius, underlined that air pollution poses the top environmental health risk in the EU. Nevertheless, there is evidence of improvement, with deaths from PM2.5 decreasing by 41% between 2005 and 2021, and the EU targets a reduction of 55% by 2030.
In response to these concerns, the WHO, which updated its air quality guidelines in 2021, warns that no level of air pollution can be considered safe but has set upper limits for certain pollutants. The European Parliament vote to bring the EU’s air quality standards in line with the WHO but decided to delay doing so until 2035.
Sinkevicius said that air quality is indeed improving due to effective clean air policies. Beyond death counts, the EEA also assessed air pollution’s broader impact on diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes, stressing not only mortality but the quality of life impacts. EEA researcher Alberto Gonzalez Ortiz pointed to severe disability states caused by these conditions, worsened by air pollution.
The EEA’s comprehensive approach shows that while the fight against air pollution has seen progress, immediate action is still critical to reduce pollution and reduce its widespread effects on public health.
1. Why does the author mention specific figures in Paragraph 1?| A．To stress the risk of PM2.5 in the EU. | B．To illustrate the impact of air pollution. |
| C．To prove the improvement in air pollution. | D．To show the guidelines of EEA lose control. |
| A．It adjusted air quality standards accordingly. |
| B．It didn’t perform the new limits until 2035. |
| C．It claimed current pollution levels were relatively safe. |
| D．It decided to change the guidelines completely. |
| A．Concerned about its policies. | B．Indifferent due to its level. |
| C．Uncertain about its impact. | D．Optimistic about its progress. |
| A．The impact of wise decisions on air pollution in the EU. |
| B．The specific health conditions worsened by air pollution. |
| C．The progress and challenges in dealing with air pollution. |
| D．The role of the WHO in establishing global health policies. |
2 . New research links outdoor air pollution — even at levels considered safe — to an increased risk of diabetes (糖尿病) globally, according to a study from the VA St. Louis Health Care System. The findings raise the possibility that reducing pollution may lead to a drop in diabetes cases in heavily polluted countries such as India and less polluted ones such as the United States.
Diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases, affecting more than 500 million people worldwide. The main drivers of diabetes include eating an unhealthy diet, having a sedentary lifestyle and obesity, but the new research indicates the extent to which outdoor air pollution plays a role.
“Our research shows a significant link between air pollution and diabetes globally,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the study’s senior author and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington. “We found an increased risk, even at low levels of air pollution currently considered safe by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). This is important because many industry lobbying (游说) groups argue that current levels are too stringent and should be relaxed. Evidence shows that current levels are still not sufficiently safe and need to be tightened.”
While growing evidence has suggested a link between air pollution and diabetes, researchers have not attempted to quantify that burden until now. “Over the past two decades, there have been bits of research about diabetes and pollution,” said Al-Aly. “We wanted to thread together the pieces for a broader, more solid understanding.”
The researchers also found that the overall risk of pollution-related diabetes tilted (倾斜) more toward lower-income countries such as India that lack the resources for environmental mitigation systems and clean-air policies. For instance, poverty-stricken countries facing a higher diabetes-pollution risk include Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea and Guyana, while richer countries such as France, Finland and Iceland experience a lower risk. The US experiences a medium risk of pollution-related diabetes.
1. What does the underlined word “stringent” in paragraph 3 mean?| A．Strict. | B．Slight. |
| C．Bright. | D．Ordinary. |
| A．To identify the causes of diabetes. |
| B．To make better air pollution control policies. |
| C．To lead the study of diabetes and air pollution. |
| D．To figure out the link between pollution and diabetes. |
| A．India. | B．Finland. |
| C．The US. | D．Guyana. |
| A．Current pollution control levels need to be tightened |
| B．Diabetes is one of the fastest growing diseases globally |
| C．Air pollution contributes significantly to diabetes globally |
| D．Poverty-stricken countries face a higher diabetes-pollution risk |
3 . People were already known to consume microplastics via food and water as well as breathing them in. In a new study, scientists analyzed blood samples from 22 healthy donators and found microplastics in 17. Half the samples contained PET plastic, which is commonly used in drinks bottles, while a third contained polystyrene, which is used for packaging food and other products. A quarter of the blood samples containcd polyethylene, from which plastic carrier bags are made.
“Previous work had shown that microplastics were 10 times higher in the faeces (粪便) of babies compared with adults and that babies fed with plastic bottles are swallowing millions of microplastic particles (微粒) a day. We also know in general that babies are more sensitive to chemical and particle exposure,” said Prof Dick Vethaak, a scientist at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.“That worries me a lot.”
The new research adapted existing techniques to detect and analyze particles as small as 0.0007mm. Some of the blood samples contained two or three types of plastic. The team used steel syrınge needles and glass tubes to avoid pollution and tested for background levels of microplastics using blank samples.
Vethaak acknowledged that the amount and type of plastic varied considerably between the blood samples.“But this is a pioneering study,”he said, with more work now necded. He said the differences might reflect short-term exposure before the blood samples were taken, such as drinking from a plastic-lined coffee cup or wearing a plastic face mask.
A recent study found that microplastics can attach to the outer membranes(膜) of red blood cells and may limit their ability to transport oxygen. The particles have also been found in the placentas of pregnant women.
“Arc the particles preserved in the body? Are they transported to certain organs? And are these levels sufficiently high to cause disease?” Vethaak said.“More detailed research on how microplastics affect the structures and processes of the human body, and whether and how they can transform cells and how they may cause cancer, is urgently needed. The problem is becoming more urgent each day,”Vethaak added.
1. What does the new study in Paragraph I show?| A．Microplastic pollution is harmful to human health. |
| B．Microplastics have been detected in human blood. |
| C．Drinks bottles contain more microplastics than plastic carrier bags. |
| D．Food packagıng is the main source of microplastics in the human body. |
| A．The mass production of plastic bottles. |
| B．The impact of microplastics on babies. |
| C．The undeveloped digestive system of babies. |
| D．The increasing amount of chemicals in food. |
| A．Diverse sampling time. |
| B．Pollution of blood samples. |
| C．Different physical conditions of donators. |
| D．Short-term exposure to plastics before sampling. |
| A．Studies of Plastic Products. |
| B．The Expectation of Microplastics. |
| C．Pioneering Studies of Microplastic Particles. |
| D．Studies of Microplastics into Human Body. |
4 . My husband and I always wanted to go to the Caribbean but didn’t know much about the islands or how we were going to afford it. By chance, a friend of ours in Australia mentioned “pet sitting” and that it is something you can do all over the world.
We quickly created an account on a pet sitting website and began searching for options. There were only a couple of sits available in that part of the world, but we tried our luck, sent a request, and to our surprise, landed a three-month job in Grenada, so our year was going to be taken up with Caribbean pet sits.
Inspired by a Canadian couple, we decided to start our own travel blog. We began by writing about The British Virgin Islands, highlighting the beautiful beaches. However, for every photo album of a beautiful beach, there were 10 photos of trash (垃圾). It was hard to ignore the plastic pollution issue, especially on such primitive and remote beaches. So, we began to share photos of the trash we saw and how much we could pick upon our daily dog walks.
The more we looked into plastic pollution, the more we realized the severity of the global plastic pollution. From that point, we used our platform to create awareness and highlight ways to say no to plastic and travel plastic-free. We changed our daily routines, our way of living, and even our diets to accommodate more organic foods and little to no plastic packaging.
It’s been over three years now and we continue to do what we can. This journey has led us to some amazing places, working with great brands and even organizing a country-wide beach clean-up campaign in Grenada.
Our aim now is to keep on going. We love connecting with like-minded people. It’s been amazing few years that was sparked by a conversation about pet sitting. Who would have guessed?
1. Why did the author do pet sitting?| A．To cover travel expenses. | B．To raise fund. |
| C．To conserve the environment. | D．To shoot beautiful beaches. |
| A．Pet sitting is a new sort of occupation. |
| B．The Caribbean is a perfect travel destination. |
| C．Travel blog is a superb way to gain popularity. |
| D．Actions should be taken to fight plastic pollution. |
| A．Challenging. | B．Significant. | C．Adventurous. | D．Unbearable. |
| A．Shifting Lifestyles by Pet Sitting | B．Address Global Environment Pollution |
| C．Unexpected Gains from Pet Sitting Travel | D．The availability of Pet Sitting in the Caribbean |
5 . A great amount of dark, sticky tar (焦油) was reported along Israel’s coast last week. An offshore oil tanker is believed to have leaked out.
The floating oil can form tar balls as it is pushed by wind and waves on the ocean’s surface. After a violent storm, the tar balls were seen ashore. Israel has about 190 kilometers of beaches. The tar has already had a big effect on the local wildlife. Volunteers were working quickly to rescue sea birds, turtles, and fish. Some animals were covered in oil or tar. Others had swallowed it. The body of a young whale was found washed up on shore. The whale appeared to have died after swallowing a black oily liquid.
The government has asked people to avoid going to the beach, since tar exposure can make people sick and do harm to the skin. A number of volunteers had to be taken to the hospital after breathing in the air polluted by chemicals from the tar.
Experts from Israel and Europe are still trying to figure out exactly what happened. The leak is believed to have taken place about a week ago, when there were strong storms in the area. Israel believed that a ship leaked tens or even hundreds of tons of oil in the Mediterranean. Experts are working together to review satellite images (图像) of ships that passed through the area, and they have a list of about 10 ships that are the most likely ones to leak out.
The Israel Nature and Parks Authority warned that the “consequences will be seen for years to come.” Israeli environmental minister Gila Gamliel said on Saturday that there is no more floating oil visible off Israel’s coast, “which is a very animative condition.” However, the ministry warned that large waves are forecast this week. The waves could carry the sticky tar from beach to beach, which could make cleanup efforts more difficult.
1. What brought the tar balls to the shore?| A．An oil ship. | B．The sea animals. |
| C．A strong storm. | D．The floating oil. |
| A．When it took place hasn’t been sure. | B．Israel has found out the cause of it. |
| C．Who’s responsible for it is unclear. | D．Volunteers have tried hard to stop it. |
| A．Challenging. | B．Natural. | C．Rare. | D．Encouraging. |
| A．Health. | B．Environment. | C．Science. | D．Trade. |
6 . Breathing in air pollution could change our brain. A new study shows that car fumes (尾气) can change how our brain is wired — how parts of the brain are connected (连接) with each other. Researchers from the University of British Columbia in Canada found that car fumes can change our brain’s connectivity in just two hours. Professor Chris Carlsten, was surprised at what he found. He said, “For many years, scientists thought the brain might be protected from the harmful effects of air pollution.” He added, “This study, which is the first of its kind in the world, supports a connection between air pollution and thinking.”
The traffic pollution study was on 25 adults. The researchers asked the adults to breathe in car fumes in a laboratory for two hours. The research team got images of their brains on a computer by X-rays. The images showed that networks in the brain that we use for thinking and remembering changed. There were fewer connections between the networks. Another professor said the research was worrying. She said, “It’s worrying to see traffic pollution disrupting (干扰) these networks.” The researchers said there needed to be more research to see the way car fumes change our brain. They also advised people to close car windows when in traffic. The brains of the 25 people returned to normal after they breathed clean air.
1. Scientists used to think that ________.| A．car fumes were harmful to adults | B．clean air helped people think clearly |
| C．air pollution might do no damage to the brain | D．parts of the brain were connected with each other |
| A．It’s important for people to reduce air pollution. |
| B．It’s impossible for the brains to return to normal. |
| C．The brain can be protected from the effects of air pollution. |
| D．Car fumes reduce the connections between brain networks. |
| A．how to make full use of X-rays | B．how car fumes change people’s brain |
| C．the cause of air pollution in the world | D．the relationship between cars and pollution |
| A．We should try to keep the air clean. | B．We should remember how our brain works. |
| C．We should close car windows when driving. | D．We should examine the images of our brains. |
| A．A magazine. | B．A dictionary. | C．A poster. | D．A notice. |
7 . According to US national park researchers, microplastic particles (微粒) equal to as many as 300 million plastic water bottles are raining down on the Grand Canyon.
In a survey of 11 remote western places, also including the Great Basin and Craters of the Moon national parks, researchers discovered more than 1000 tons of microplastic particles that had traveled through the atmosphere via rain or water particles.
Most microplastics are from larger pieces of plastic. Since plastics don’t degrade (降解), plastics that end up in waste piles or landfills break down into microparticles and make their way through the Earth’s atmosphere, soil and water systemics.
Janice Brahney, lead researcher at Utah State University, said, “Plastics could be deposited (沉降), readmitted to the atmosphere again, transported for some time…who knows how many times, and who knows how far they’ve traveled?”
Brahney’s team found that so-called wet microplastics, named for the way they are transported, are most likely disturbed by a storm and swept up into the atmosphere, having originated in larger urban areas. By comparison, the spreading patterns of dry microplastics is the same as dust and can travel long distances, often across continents.
Brahney warned that new findings show an urgent need to reduce plastic pollution. Although their full effects on the human body are still unknown, scientists are starting to raise public health concerns over microplastic particles: They’re small enough to stay in lung tissue, causing damage and, in some cases of routine exposure, can lead to asthma and cancer.
Scientists have also found that microplastic particles affect the temperature adjustment function of the soil, leading to losses in plant life.
Brahney believes that her research is just the beginning of understanding how microplastics move through ecosystems.
“Learning about plastics and how they don’t degrade seems like, ‘Oh my God, we should have been expecting this: they’ re just made into these tiny sizes, they could certainly be carried by the wind,” Brahney said.
“We’ve just been missing it,” she added.
1. The direct cause of the microplastic rain is that_________.| A．small pieces from plastics become degradable |
| B．microplastic particles travel into the atmosphere |
| C．plastic particles end up in waste piles or landfills |
| D．plastic water bottles are transported to the water systems |
| A．The structure of microplastic particles. |
| B．The distance that microplastics can travel. |
| C．The way that microplastics are transported. |
| D．The different types of microplastic particles. |
| A．Microplastics have affected the ecosystem. |
| B．Plastic particles have serious effects on human health. |
| C．Methods to degrade plastics could be developed soon. |
| D．Researchers have missed the best time to study plastics. |
| A．Favorable. | B．Uncaring. |
| C．Doubtful. | D．Worried. |
8 . Lithium (锂) is called “white gold” for good reason. The metal’s value has been growing sharply over the last several years, in a large part because it is an essential part of batteries as well as several key sustainable technologies where energy storage is of huge significance. As electric cars, wind and solar power have grown into major players in the energy industry, lithium has become key to engineering a future free of fossil (化石) fuels.
But acquiring lithium comes at an enormous cost. It often works like this: Water containing lithium is delivered to the surface from underground and mixed with fresh water. The mixture then sits in pools to get rid of water, leaving the rest of its contents behind as brightly colored “mud”. Then heat and chemical reactions are used to get lithium from that, changing it into powder which is then packaged and shipped to buyers around the world.
Any accident that releases mine contents into surrounding communities or the groundwater supply could have unimaginable long-term impacts. To be specific, indigenous (土著的) communities often bear the damage, and political leaders have typically given little weight to their concerns. In Arizona, for example, an expanding lithium mine is threatening the Hualapai Tribe’s cultural and historic sites. Recently, mining lithium and other precious metals has brought about conflict: How do you ensure the availability of materials essential to the future of renewables while protecting those communities’ rights?
Mining of the metal is expected to increase dramatically in coming years. Over time, experts say, that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions (排放) by making electric cars more affordable and, therefore, more popular. As environmentally conscious consumers buy electric cars in ever-greater numbers, it’s important to be aware of the dirty process that powers those clean air vehicles.
1. What does the author’s intention of writing Paragraph 1?| A．To introduce the background of an event. | B．To explain a complex industrial theory. |
| C．To describe a noticeable recent tendency. | D．To predict the future of a main technology. |
| A．Unexpected material leak. | B．Violent chemical reactions. |
| C．Wrong political decisions. | D．Lithium mine expansion. |
| A．Intolerant. | B．Uncaring. | C．Favorable. | D．Objective. |
| A．High Expense of Lithium Mining | B．Potential Benefit of Using Lithium |
| C．Hidden Threat behind Clean Energy | D．Bright Future of Renewable Resources |
9 . There is increasing alarm about the extent of microplastic pollution, which has been found everywhere from Everest to the Arctic. However, it turns out there’s an even smaller and more toxic form of plastic pollution entering remote reaches of the globe. A new study published in Environmental Research found significant quantities of nanoplastics in ice samples from both the North and South Poles.
“Now we know that nanoplastics are transported to these comers of the Earth in these quantities. This indicates that nanoplastics are really a bigger pollution problem than we thought,” study lead author Dusan Materic said in a press release.
Nanoplastics are plastics that are smaller than a micrometer in size. Their small size means they are more difficult to study than microplastics, or plastics between five millimeters and a micrometer. But they may be even more dangerous.
“Nanoplastics are very toxicologically active compared to, for instance, microplastics, and that’s why this is very important,” Materic said.
Materic and his team used new methods to measure nanoplastic pollution in ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica. They sampled a 14-meter-deep ice core from the Greenland ice cap and sea ice from Antarctica’s McMurdo Sound. They found that there were an average of 13. 2 nanograms per milliliter of nanoplastics in the Greenland ice and an average of 52. 3 nanograms per milliliter in the Antarctic ice.
But what was even more surprising than the amount of nanoplastics in the remote ice was just how long they had sat there. “In the Greenland core, we see nanoplastic pollution happening all the way from the 1960s. So organisms, despite the lack of the solid evidence, likely all over the world, have been exposed to it for quite some time now,” Materic said.
The study also looked at the types of plastic present in the samples. Half of the Greenland nanoplastics were polyethylene (PE), the kind of plastic used for plastic bags and packaging. A quarter came from tires and a fifth were polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is used for clothing and bottles.
1. Why should researchers focus more on nanoplastics?| A．They are more important to science. |
| B．They are smaller but more dangerous. |
| C．They are easily polluted by ocean water. |
| D．They are more active in cold surroundings. |
| A．The North and South poles are the birthplace of nanoplastics. |
| B．Nanoplastics have less influence on the planet than microplastics. |
| C．Nanoplastics found in the samples are widely used in the daily life. |
| D．Nanoplastics have been existing since the 1960s throughout the world. |
| A．The Greenland core. |
| B．The Antarctic ice. |
| C．The amount of nanoplastics. |
| D．Nanoplastics pollution. |
| A．Microplastics-proving more dangerous. |
| B．Nanoplastics-making its way to the poles. |
| C．Nanoplastics-posing a threat to people’s life. |
| D．Microplastics-setting the alarm bells ringing. |
10 . Of all the weird and wonderful creatures living under the sea, perhaps the strangest are jellyfish—those rubbery, cone-shaped creatures found floating in the water, their long tentacles trailing behind.
Some jellyfish species have a bad reputation for scaring away tourists, clogging up fishing nets, and even blocking power station pipes. But with more and more plastic rubbish ending up in the sea, these days you’re as likely to swim into a plastic bag as a jellyfish. Now scientific research is discovering that these rubbery sea creatures might provide an answer—a sticky solution to the problem of plastic pollution.
In recent years, tiny pieces of plastic called microplastic have been a significant problem for the world’s seas and oceans. These plastics are not visible to the eye and aren’t caught by seawater treatment plants due to their small size, so they enter our system and harm our health. They’ve been found in many places—in Arctic ice, at the bottom of the sea and even inside animals. Slovenian scientist, Dr Ana Rotter, heads GoJelly, a European research team of jellyfish ecologists looking into the problem.
Microplastics, plastics in general, are becoming an increasing problem. Dr Ana Rotter says when she was a child, people were more environmentally friendly—not harmful to the environment or having the least possible impact on it. At that time, there were very few single-use plastics—plastic items, like spoons and forks, designed to be used just once, then thrown away. The situation since then has changed dramatically. In fact, there’s been such an increase in microplastics that today the UN lists plastic pollution as one of the world’s top environmental threats.
But how do jellyfish fit into the story? Well, it’s the ‘jelly’ part of jellyfish, and specifically their sticky, jelly-like mucus that is key. Jellyfish produce a thick, sticky liquid called mucus. Dr Ana Rotter has discovered that this mucus has strong absorptive capabilities—it can absorb, take in liquids and other substances. One of the substances jellyfish mucus absorbs are the particles that make up microplastics.
Dr Rotter’s research is still in the early stages, but it’s hoped that jellyfish mucus could hold the key to a future free of microplastic polluted oceans. Scientists are hoping that the mucus’s absorptive properties—its abilities to absorb liquids and other substances and hold them, will allow it to trap particles of plastic floating in the sea. By trapping these, the mucus acts like a magnet—an object that attracts certain materials, like metal, but in this case, microplastic waste.
1. Paragraph 3 mainly talks about ________.| A．where microplastics can be found |
| B．why microplastics can harm our health |
| C．what problems the seas and oceans are facing |
| D．how the research was carried out by the scientist |
| A．Jellyfish species cause a great threat to the sea. |
| B．Jellyfish species like to swim and live in plastic bags. |
| C．Jellyfish mucus can attract metals and break them down. |
| D．Jellyfish mucus can absorb liquids and some other substances. |
| A．Qualities. | B．Substances. | C．Choices. | D．Materials. |
| A．To show the harm that sea and ocean pollution brings to human beings. |
| B．To introduce the living habits of the weird and wonderful creatures in the sea. |
| C．To provide a new method for collecting data on environmental threats in the sea. |
| D．To inform a promising scientific finding for dealing with plastic pollution in the sea. |
