1 . A new study by researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the University of Victoria has shown that common levels of traffic pollution can damage human brain function in only a matter of hours.

“For many decades, scientists thought the brain may be protected from the harmful effects of air pollution,” said senior study author Dr. Chris Carlsten. “This study, which is the first of its kind in the world, provides fresh evidence supporting a connection between air pollution and cognition.”

For the study, the researchers briefly exposed 25 healthy adults to diesel exhaust (柴油废气) and filtered air at different times in a laboratory setting. Brain activity was measured before and after each exposure using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The researchers analyzed changes in the brain’s default mode network (DMN), a set of inter-connected brain regions that play an important role in memory and internal thought. The fMRI revealed that participants had decreased functional connectivity in widespread regions of the DMN after exposure to diesel exhaust, compared to filtered air.

“We know that altered functional connectivity in the DMN has been associated with reduced cognitive performance and symptoms of depression, so it’s concerning to see traffic pollution interrupting these same networks,” said Dr. Jodie Gawryluk, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria and the study’s first author. “While more research is needed to fully understand the functional impacts of these changes, it’s possible that they may impair (损害) people’s thinking or ability to work.”

Notably, the changes in the brain were temporary and participants’ connectivity returned to normal after the exposure. Dr. Carlsten assumed that the effects could be long lasting where exposure is continuous. He said that people should be mindful of the air they’re breathing and take appropriate steps to minimize their exposure to potentially harmful air pollutants like car exhaust.

1. How does traffic pollution affect people according to the study?

A．Exhausting their body.	B．Decreasing their income.
C．Endangering their safety.	D．Harming their brain function.

2. What may the DMN be responsible for?

A．Growth.

B．Sport.

C．Memory.

D．Behaviour.

3. What can people do to reduce the impact according to Dr. Carlsten?

A．Avoid being exposed to the polluted air constantly.

B．Be mindful of the air quality in a new city.

C．Measure the brain activity in laboratories.

D．Stay inside a house as often as possible.

4. What is the best title for the text?

A．A Role Of Brain Will Be Ruined

B．Traffic Pollution May Impair Brain Function

C．A Famous UK University Did A Vital Study

D．A Source Of Pollution Has Drawn People’s Attention

2 . Plastic pollution is growing rapidly across Earth’s ecosystems and its threat to humanity and wildlife is too. Outcomes for health and the environment will be severe unless we address it, says a United Nations (UN) report. But the discovery of microplastics in human blood means immediate action is needed.

Researchers found tiny plastic particles (微粒), less than one-thousandth of a millimeter in size, in almost 80 percent of 22 people they tested. Such small plastics can travel through the body and could stick in our vital organs. These tiny pieces could damage cells and tissues, causing many diseases like cancer.

“I was shocked but not surprised. We already knew that microplastics have been found in human organs. The body finds it hard to break these particles down, which associate them with chronic (长期的) disease,” said Jo Royle, the CEO of Common Seas—a social enterprise looking to stop plastic pollution. “It’s clear that the best way to battle with microplastics and prevent health problems is to make sure they don’t end up being deserted in our environment in the first place,” added Royle. “This is why we need leaders and businesses to take responsibility for plastic trash along its lifecycle.”

Some oil and gas companies that supply plastic products plan to expand plastic output and double production in the next 20 years. But analysts say that would backfire on people, governments, and industries rejecting plastic to protect the environment. Big brands are reducing plastic packaging and changing to alternatives. Plastic is seen as a threat as large as climate change and a UN treaty against pollution is the result.

Natural products like plant materials and even silk offer plastic alternatives, especially in food and product packaging. But the UN believes we cannot simply recycle our way out of the problem. An immediate reduction and industry transformation are needed. As the blood microplastic study suggests, that transformation must be rapid. Because the rate at which we absorb plastic into our bodies is faster than the rate we remove it. And that needs a planet-wide response.

1. What is the best way to solve microplastics problems according to Royle?

A．Medical treatments for microplastics.

B．Restrictions on throwing plastic waste.

C．Developing natural alternatives to plastic.

D．Raising personal awareness of microplastic.

2. What do the underlined words “backfire on” in paragraph 4 mean?

A．Go against.

B．Apply to.

C．Depend on.

D．Respond to.

3. What can be inferred from the last paragraph?

A．Recycling plastics proves to be not effective at all.

B．Rapid transformation in plastic industry is needed.

C．Most natural materials can be alternatives to plastics.

D．The rate of bodies’ absorbing plastics is uncontrollable.

4. Which can be a suitable title for the text?

A．Plastic Pollution Is Transforming Humans’ Lifestyle

B．Increasing Updated Plastics Have Enjoyed Popularity

C．Microplastics in Blood Highlight Health Emergency

D．Practical Solutions to Plastic Waste Are Approaching

4 . Recycling is a great way of doing your bit for the environment and helping to protect the earth’s precious resources. However, a new study has revealed that our desire to be sustainable maybe doing more harm than good. According to waste company Biffa, this is because of “wish-cycling” — assuming that items such as disposable coffee cup sand pizza boxes will be recycled if put in the recycling bin. In fact, pollution from those items or other non-recyclables can result in recyclable items that have been put in the correct bin going to landfill. David Heaton, a business director at Biffa, said: “Pollution happens when items are disposed of in the wrong bins or haven’t been cleaned before being recycled.”

Experts at Biffa analyzed the amounts of non-target and non-recyclable materials that entered UK material recycling facilities between 2016 and 2020. It was found that, in 2016, the average pollution rate of recycling waste was 13.4 percent, rising over four years to 17 percent by the end of 2020. This shows that, even as people are becoming more eco-conscious, wish-cycling is increasing both in households and businesses.

The Biffa experts say that one of the best ways to prevent pollution of recycling is to clean recyclable waste before putting it in the bin. They suggest cutting off the top of old pizza boxes and only recycling that part to avoid pollution from the grease (油脂). Check the on-packaging recycling label to check it can actually be recycled When it comes to plastics, Biffa recommends checking the resin code, the number in the plastic triangle, to know whether it should go in the recycling bin. In general, resin codes 1, 2, 4 and 5 are recyclable, while 3, 6 and 7 are not. Larger items, like electronics, furniture and batteries, can also be recycled but often can not go in household recycling bins as they need specialist separating. These will need to be taken to recycling centers or sustainable waste management companies.

“It’s vital as a nation that we get better at effective ‘pre-cycling’— sorting waste correctly before collection to reduce pollution rates,” added Mr. Heaton.

1. What’s the truth of “wish-cycling” according to the first paragraph?

A．The desire to lead a sustainable life.

B．The good intention to help recycling.

C．The habit of throwing items that end up in landfills.

D．The practice of recycling items that can not be recycled.

2. What has experts at Biffa concluded after their analysis?

A．People are becoming more eco-conscious.

B．Wish-cycling is on the rise in recent years.

C．Pollution happens less frequently in recycling facilities.

D．People are used to cleaning recyclable waste before putting it in the bin.

3. Which of the following is a proper way of recycling?

A．Dispose of electronics together with household waste.

B．Skip the step of checking the on-packaging recycling label.

C．Check the resin code of plastics to see whether it is recyclable or not.

D．Cutoff the top of old pizza box and throw the rest to the recycling bin.

4. Which is the most suitable title for the text?

A．Recycling: a Big Project	B．Wish-cycling: a New Trend
C．Wish-cycling: a Growing Concern	D．Pre-cycling: an Effective Method

5 . Blue whales eat up to 10 million pieces of microplastic every day, research estimated Tuesday, suggesting that the pollution causes a bigger danger to the world’s largest animal than previously thought.

A US-led research team put tags on 191 blue whales that live off the coast of California to observe their movements. “It’s basically like an Apple Watch, just on the back of a whale,” said Shirel Kahane-Rapport, a researcher at California State University, Fullerton, and the study’s first author.

The whales mostly fed at depths of between 50 to 250 meters, which is home to the “greatest concentration of microplastics in the sea,” Kahane-Rapport said. The researchers then estimated the size and number of mouthfuls the whales had daily, modeling three different situations. Under the most likely situation, the blue whales ate up to 10 million microplastic pieces a day. Over the 90 to 120 days’ annual feeding season, which represents more than a billion pieces a year.

The largest animal ever to live on Earth is also likely the biggest microplastic consumer, eating up to 43.6 kilograms a day, the study said. While it is easy to imagine whales sucking (吞没) in vast amounts of microplastics as they ate, the researchers found that was not the case.

Instead, 99 percent of the microplastics entered the whales because they were already inside their prey (猎物). “That’s concerning for us,” Kahane-Rapport said, because humans eat that prey. “We also eat sardines,” she said, adding that “krill (磷虾) is the basis of the food web.” “Previous research has shown that if krill is in a tank with microplastic, they will eat it,” Kahane-Rapport said.

Now that the researchers know how much microplastic is being consumed by whales, next they aim to determine how much harm it could be doing. “The quantity defines the poison,” Kahane-Rapport said.

1. Why is a tag placed on the back of the whales?

A．It can treat the illness of whales.	B．It can track the living of whales.
C．It can ensure the safety of whales.	D．It can record the danger of whales.

2. How do the researchers show their findings in the study?

A．By providing data.

B．By giving examples.

C．By explaining the reason.

D．By expressing their guess.

3. Which of the following may Kahane-Rapport agree with?

A．The research process was very complicated.	B．The whales live in the area free from pollution.
C．Most microplastics entered the whales directly.	D．Humans may eat microplastics through their diet.

4. What can we infer about the study from the last two paragraphs?

A．It will be highly profitable.	B．It will be further conducted.
C．It will involve food poison.	D．It will help whales avoid risk.

6 . The tradition of giving gifts didn’t start with the modern holidays we celebrate. Many ancient cultures celebrated holidays with the exchange of gifts. People who love to give gifts often can’t wait until it’s time for the recipients to open their gifts. If you’ve ever been given a gift, you know that part of the fun is the curiosity that builds as you wonder what the gift is.

The wish to hide the identity of a gift until just the right moment led people to wrap gifts long, long ago. Historians believed wrapping gifts in paper probably started not long after paper was invented thousands of years ago.

Wrapping paper like what we use today, though, is a much more recent invention. More than 100 years ago, gifts were usually wrapped in heavy brown paper. Before that, cloth was often used. The technology to mass-produce wrapping paper didn’t come along until the early 1900s. The first American gift wrap company— Hy-Sill Manufacturing Inc. — was founded by Eli Hyman and Morris Silverman in 1903. It wasn’t as easy to wrap presents back then as it is today, though, because adhesive tape (胶带) wasn’t invented until 1930.

Over the years, wrapping paper has developed into what we see in stores each holiday season. But scientists say that the United States alone produces an extra 5 million tons of waste over the holidays, most of which is from wrapping paper and shopping bags. To cut down on this waste, some people carefully unwrap presents, so that the wrapping paper can be reused. Others have started to use reusable gift bags instead of wrapping paper.

1. What is the interesting part of people giving a gift?

A．Hiding their gifts and their feelings.

B．Giving the recipients a surprise.

C．Letting the recipients open gifts at once.

D．Following a century-old tradition.

2. What can we learn from Paragraph 3?

A．People didn’t know wrapping paper until 1903.

B．Heavy brown paper has been used to wrap gifts for 100 years.

C．Technology made wrapping paper widely available.

D．Adhesive tape was first created by gift wrap companies.

3. What do scientists worry about?

A．The future of reusable gift bags.

B．The waste produced by Americans.

C．Wrapping paper’s influence on the environment.

D．People’s admiration for wrapping paper.

4. What does the text mainly tell us?

A．The popularity of wrapping gifts.

B．The start of wrapping gifts in paper.

C．The problems caused by wrapping paper.

D．The story behind wrapping paper.

7 . Artificial light should be treated like other forms of pollution, research says. Human illumination (照明) of the planet is growing in range and intensity by about 2% a year, creating a problem that can be compared to climate change, according to a team of biologists from the University of Exeter. Hormone levels, breeding cycles, activity patterns and vulnerability to predators are being affected across a broad range of species, they write in a paper published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution.

From reduced pollination (授粉) by insects and trees budding earlier in spring, to seabirds flying into lighthouses and sea turtles mistakenly wandering inland to bright hotels in search of the dawn sun, their study brings together 126 previous papers to assess the extent of the impact.

In all the species examined, they found reduced levels of melatonin — a hormone that regulates sleep cycles — as a result of artificial light at night. Rodents (啮齿动物), which mostly search for food at night, were active for a shorter duration, while birds started singing and searching for worms earlier in the day. However, the outcomes were not purely negative. Owing to night-time light, some plants grew faster and some types of bats thrived. But the overall effect was disruptive, particularly to the insects drawn to hot bulbs or fast-moving car lamps.

“What stands out is how ubiquitous the effects are. The effects are found on microbes, invertebrates (无脊柱动物), animals and plants,” said the lead author, Kevin Gaston, a professor at the university's Environment and Sustainability Institute. “We need to start thinking about lighting in the way we think of other big systemic pressures like climate change.”

According to Gaston, there has been an increase in studies in the past five to ten years as the amount of lighting in the world has increased and the effects have become more evident. Satellite images of the Earth at night show how rapidly the problem is expanding geographically, and lights are also becoming more intense as expensive bulbs with yellow light are replaced by greater numbers of cheap bright white LEDs. This is biologically problematic because the white light has a wider spectrum, like sunlight.

Gaston urged governments, companies and individuals to be more discriminating. “At the moment, we just take lighting for granted. But we need to think in terms of using it only when we need it, where we need it and how we need it,” he said. “It is another pollutant.”

Unlike the climate crisis, however, he said solving the lighting problem would save rather than cost money. If people use fewer lights, it would mean lower costs, less electricity and lower emissions.

“At the heart of this is a deep-rooted human need to light up the night. We are still in a sense afraid of the dark,” he said. “But the ability to turn the night-time into something like the daytime is something we have pursued for beyond the necessity of doing so.”

1. Why is artificial light a pollutant according to the biologists?

A．It has a serious impact on nature.

B．It shortens the growing time of plants.

C．It contributes to other forms of pollution.

D．It threatens the existence of human beings.

2. What did the biologists find about artificial light?

A．It can be used to act as the dawn sun.

B．It can regulate the sleep cycles of animals.

C．It can prevent all species developing properly.

D．It can disturb behavior patterns in some species.

3. What does the underlined word "ubiquitous” mean?

A．Normal.	B．Common
C．Powerful.	D．Special.

4. How did Kevin Gaston feel about solving the lighting problem?

A．It is worth the cost.	B．It is time-consuming.
C．It requires a change of attitude.	D．It needs to be discussed globally.

8 . The World Health Organization warns that millions of people are dying every year from indoor air pollution. Nearly three billion people are unable to use clean fuels and technologies for cooking, heating as well as lighting.

These findings show that the use of deadly fuels in inefficient stoves, space heaters or lights is to blame for many of these deaths.

WHO officials say indoor pollution leads to early deaths from stroke, heart and lung disease, childhood pneumonia and lung cancer. Women and girls are the main victims. These diseases can often result from the burning of solid fuels. These fuels include wood, coal, animal waste, crop waste and charcoal.

The United Nations found that more than 95 percent of households in sub-Saharan Africa depend on solid fuels for cooking. It says huge populations in India, China and Latin American countries, such as Guatermala and Peru,are also at risk.

Nigel Brace is a professor of Public Health at the University of Liverpool. He says researchers are developing good cook-stoves and other equipment to burn fuels in a more efficient way.There are already multiple technologies available for use in clean fuels.There is really quite an effective and reasonably low-cost alcohol stove made by Dometic (a Sweden-based company) that is now being tested out. LPG (Liquefield Petroleum Gas) cook is obviously widely available and efforts are under way to make those efficient. Another interesting development is electric induction stoves. WHO experts note that some new, safe and low-cost technologies that could help are already available. In India, you can buy an induction stove for about $8.00. And in Africa you can buy a solar lamp for less than $1.00.

But this,the agency says, is just a start. It is urging developing countries to use cleaner fuels and increase access to cleaner and more modern cooking and heating appliances/devices.

1. What does the indoor pollution mainly result from?

A．Poisonous fuels.

B．High technology.

C．Space heaters.

D．Solar energy.

2. How is Paragraph 3 mainly developed?

A．By showing differences.	B．By describing a process.
C．By making a list.	D．By analyzing data.

3. What can we infer from the passage?

A．Indoor pollution results in some deaths.

B．Most of the deaths are in developing countries.

C．The solid fuels are used in more effective ways.

D．There is no indoor pollution in developed countries.

4. Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage?

A．LPG cooks are being tested out.	B．Alcohol stoves are widely used now.
C．Electric induction stoves are expensive.	D．Solar lamps are very cheap in Africa.

9 . Although a rich literature exists documenting the negative relationship between air pollution and physiological (生理的) health, little has been done to examine the role of air pollution in psychological heath. In the study, titled “Air Pollution Reduces Interpersonal Trust” researchers used three different experimental designs to test their theory that air pollution would reduce one's level of trust in others.

In Study 1, participants were presented with landscape photos that showed either polluted scenes or clear scenes. Those who viewed photos of polluted scenes reported lower scores when completing a questionnaire measuring social trust.

In Study 2, researchers used a “big data” approach, collecting mass information from social media platforms and analyzing it in connection with weather monitoring data. Their analysis showed that polluted conditions were associated with reduced expressions of positive emotions on social media sites, while clearer conditions were associated with stronger positive emotional expressions.

Finally, in Study 3, participants who were asked to read social media posts about poor air quality reported less social trust than those who read posts unrelated to pollution. This makes sense---as air pollution causes negative emotions, people are more likely to focus on others' negative characteristics and find them less trustworthy.

The effects of this study are far-reaching. By reducing trust in others, this study suggests that air pollution can have negative effects on social unity and harmony. Considering widespread air pollution throughout the globe, any effect between pollution and human psychology should be given serious attention.

1. What did the researchers design three different experiments for?

A．To prove that one's level of trust would be negatively affected by air pollution.

B．To test the theory that air pollution would increase the level of trust in others.

C．To prove that air pollution would have a positive effect on trust in others.

D．To test the theory that air pollution would have a negative effect on physical health.

2. According to the study, if you'd like to meet a new friend, which day will you choose to strengthen your friendship?

A．A fair day	B．A happy day
C．A rainy day	D．A polluted day

3. What can be concluded from Study 2?

A．People expressed their feelings more positively in polluted weather on social media sites.

B．People posted more negative feelings in clearer weather on social media sites

C．Polluted weather led to less positive emotion expressions on social media sites.

D．Clearer weather led to less positive emotion expressions on social media sites

4. According to the last paragraph, how should we deal with this study?

A．It has little effect on the society and can be ignored.

B．It should be paid special attention to.

C．It should be further conducted.

D．It should be stopped.

10 . As our boat moves quickly up and down in a windy ice-filled small bay, I try to judge the health condition of the polar bear (北极熊)in front of me. We are in Franz Josef Land, a remote part of Russia between the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean.

While offshore bears follow the sea ice, hunting seals (海豹)on ice all year round, bears that live by the sea spend their summers on land and are forced to search for whatever they can find. Relying on low-calorie meals such as the eggs of nesting seabirds, it is harder for these bears to pack on the pounds. Researchers recently found that offshore bears around the Barents Sea are some of the most polluted animals on Earth. This is a direct consequence of the seals they feed on.

Over a period of 14 years' study, Heli Routti from the Norwegian Polar Institute found that offshore female bears were in a better health, having greater body weight, than female bears by the sea, but on average their levels of pollutants called PFASs are 33 percent higher.

PFASs are used to make industrial products which are poisonous and degrade (降解)very slowly. These pollutants find their way to the Arctic through air, where they fall in snow and gradually add up in the ice. As the ice melts every summer, the PFASs go into the water, where they enter the food chain. They eventually make their way into the fat that keeps seals warm and from there into the bears that eat them.

During my 15 days in Franz Josef Land, I saw five bears, all living by the sea. Each looked relatively healthy. There are signs that these bears are dealing with the global-warming-caused ice loss relatively well. “The bears, so far, seem to be handling the sea ice loss,” says Andrew Derocher at the University of Alberta, who worked with Routti on the study, “But I'm sure that's going to change if the speed of ice loss increases sharply in the area.”

1. From the text we can learn polar bears living by the sea ________.

A．eat seals on ice all year round

B．look for food on land in summer

C．become the most polluted animals on Earth

D．stay on the ice in summer to avoid hot weather

2. What does the underlined part “pack on the pounds” in Paragraph 2 mean?

A．Put on weight.	B．Move around.
C．Fight against pollution.	D．Live alone.

3. What is Paragraph 4 mainly about?

A．The rate of PFASs' degradation.	B．The effects of PFASs on the environment.
C．The process of PFASs' entering polar bears.	D．The application of PFASs in modern industry.

4. According to Andrew Derocher, what will happen if the sea ice loss increases?

A．More pollutants may go into the air.	B．It will make no difference to bears.
C．The death rate of seals may increase.	D．Bears might fail to adapt to the change.