2011
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 147–151
A critique of recent air sampling data collected on aircraft: how much exposure to neurotoxic fumes is acceptable?
Judith Murawski1, and Susan Michaelis2
1 Industrial Hygienist, AFA-CWA-AFL-CIO, 501 3rd Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, USA
2 Head of Research, GCAQE, Milestone House, 86 Hurst Road, Horsham RH12 2DT, UK
There is an ongoing debate within the aviation industry as to whether, and to what degree, it is acceptable to expose airline crews and passengers to neurotoxic oil fumes that contain, among other things, tricresyl phosphates (TCPs). Crew members around the world have reported neurological illness after reports of exposure to oil fumes, but exposure data are lacking. Instead, crews must largely rely on aircraft mechanical records to demonstrate that engine oil fumes contaminated their breathing air that is first compressed in either the aircraft engines or an auxiliary power unit (“bleed air”). A recent sampling study funded by the UK Department for Transport reported low levels of airborne TCPs on 23 of 100 passenger and cargo flights, involving four aircraft types. These findings are troubling, in part because none of the exposures triggered any of the airlines’ reporting protocols. The reader is left to wonder what levels of TCPs might be associated with a “fume event” that does trigger reporting protocols. Equally troubling is the researchers’ conclusion that the measured presence of airborne neurotoxins during these flights is acceptable, as is the lack of concern that the findings appear to have generated within aviation regulatory bodies, both within and beyond the UK. Given the absence of an agreed-upon “safe” concentration of engine oil fumes for aircraft occupants to inhale, regulatory bodies need to require airlines to either filter and monitor engine bleed air, or to operate aircraft with non-bleed systems that do not require occupants to breathe unfiltered engine air.
Keywords: aircraft, fumes, oil