Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

Passenger aircraft cabin air quality: trends, eects, societal

costs, proposals
M.B. Hocking

Department of Chemistry, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3065 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3V6
Received 27 September 1999; accepted 3 November 1999

Abstract
As aircraft operators have sought to substantially reduce propulsion fuel cost by ying at higher altitudes, the
energy cost of providing adequate outside air for ventilation has increased. This has lead to a signicant decrease in the
amount of outside air provided to the passenger cabin, partly compensated for by recirculation of ltered cabin air. The
purpose of this review paper is to assemble the available measured air quality data and some calculated estimates of the
air quality for aircraft passenger cabins to highlight the trend of the last 25 years. The inuence of lter eciencies on
air quality, and a few medically documented and anecdotal cases of illness transmission aboard aircraft are discussed.
Cost information has been collected from the perspective of both the airlines and passengers. Suggestions for air
quality improvement are given which should help to result in a net, multistakeholder savings and improved passenger
comfort. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Energy costs; Filters; Carbon dioxide

1. Introduction
Pressurization of aircraft passenger cabins in the
1940s permitted operation at higher ceilings. This substantially reduces aircraft drag, decreasing fuel costs by
38% (at 30,000 ft, 9140 m, compared to at sea level), but
the increased pressurization of the outside air required
for ventilation adds up to 2% to fuel costs. The 1945
Boeing Stratocruiser was one of the rst passenger aircraft to recycle some of the air in the passenger cabin as
a means to reduce this incremental cost. Today some
50% of commercial passenger aircraft use recirculated
air for ventilation of the passenger cabin, as much as
52% of the total in some aircraft, and an objective of as
high as 80% has been proposed (Oldeld, 1996). This
review collects together the available measured aircraft

Tel.: +250-721-7165; fax: +250-721-7147.

E-mail address: hockingm@uvvm.uvic.ca (M.B. Hocking).

air quality data organized on a temporal basis. It considers this information, and the general decline in aircraft capability to provide outside air, in relation to
the well being of passengers and cabin crew. Finally, the
apparent direct savings achieved is compared from the
airlines, and from the passengers perspectives. This
comparison is then briey related to the overall increase
in societal system costs that are probably incurred as a
result of this development.

2. Impact of energy costs on outside air supply

The level of outside air required, and the extent to
which recirculated air is used in the ventilation of any
occupied enclosed space to ensure good health and
comfort has always been a subtle issue. As the proportion of recirculated air provided for ventilation is increased, energy savings can be experienced at the same
time as health risks raised, whether this relates to a

0045-6535/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 6 5 3 5 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 5 3 7 - 8

604

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

Fig. 1. Trends in outside (fresh) air ventilation capability in recent types of passenger aircraft. Reproduced from Oldeld (1996) with
permission from the publisher.

building or a passenger aircraft. For example, the impetus of the 1974 energy crisis prompted the lowering of
building ventilation standards in the United States from
20 to 5 ft3 /min per person (9.42.4 L/s per person,
Kreiss, 1993). This large scale inadvertent experiment
gave more eye, nose, and throat irritation, headaches,
and diculty concentrating/general malaise to many
people working under these conditions, the so-called
sick building syndrome. When this standard and ventilation levels were subsequently raised back to the preenergy crisis level of 20 ft3 /min, it resulted in prompt
relief in complaints from occupants.
Relevant to the aircraft air quality issue, possible
causes of the sick building syndrome have been extensively examined (e.g., Hocking, 1998) and in some cases
site specic causes, such as contamination of the air
handling system, have been discovered (Rhodes et al.,
1995). One blind study found no correlation between the
level of provision of outside air and the number of
complaints received from building occupants (Menzies
et al., 1993). This unusual result was probably because
the low end of the 2050 ft3 /min outside air per occupant
range that was tested was too high to illicit sick building
syndrome symptoms. Most sick building ventilation
studies have demonstrated a negative correlation
between outside air provided and complaints from
occupants (Bourbeau et al., 1997; Menzies et al., 1997).
One such study did nd a positive correlation, and that
occurred when only a poor quality outside air supply
was available for ventilation of the index building
(Argirou et al., 1994).
In 1970 the average passenger aircraft provided
15 ft3 /min per person (7 L/s) of outside air, or more, in
keeping with the generally accepted levels of building
ventilation at that time. Coinciding with the escalation
of oil prices in 1974 it was not technically feasible to
reduce the outside air provided for aircraft as rapidly as
was possible with buildings. But in the interval since

then some commercial aircraft are now only capable of

providing barely 6 ft3 /min passenger (2.8 L/s) outside air
to their passenger cabins, less than a half of that formerly provided (Fig. 1). When the discretionary control
of the ventilation by the ight deck is also taken into
account, the actual provision of outside air has occasionally been as low as 2.1 ft3 /min per person (1 L/s),
more recently improved to 6 ft3 /min per person (2.8 L/
s). Bearing in mind the recent complete reversal in the
policy regarding the recommended amount of outside
air supplied to building ventilation systems, are these
changes to aircraft ventilation systems justied?
3. Case for a substantial outside air supply
Air travellers represent one of the most diverse
groups of people called upon to sit in close proximity for
prolonged periods with the smallest available air space
per person of any current social setting (ASHRAE,
1989; Hocking, 1998). To quantify this, passengers in a
fully loaded aircraft typically have about 3570 ft3
(10002000 L) of available air space per person, roughly
1/10th that of a typical oce worker or a spectator in an
auditorium. With 35 ft3 (1000 L) of space per person and
without any air change it would take only 2.3 min for
the concentration of carbon dioxide in that space to
exceed the 1000 ppmv comfort ceiling recommended by
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Airconditioning Engineers (ASHRAE, Standard; Hocking,
1998). This is essentially the same as the recommendation given by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM, 1996). The ASHRAE carbon dioxide
recommendation, while not specically for aircraft,
is ``... for all indoor or enclosed spaces that people
may occupy...'', and the ASTM guideline is given as
650 ppmv above the outdoor carbon dioxide concentration. Without any air change it would take only

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

605

Table 1
Eect of carbon dioxide recycle accumulation on oxygen partial pressures at normal aircraft cabin pressure equivalent to 8000 ft
(2440 m) altitudea
Cabin CO2 concentration (ppm)
357
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000

CO2 partial pressures (mm Hg)

Oxygen partial pressures (mm Hg)

Present

Producedb

Consumedc

Remainingd

0.202
0.565
1.13
1.70
2.26
2.83

0.00
0.363
0.928
1.49
2.06
2.62

0.00
0.432
1.10
1.77
2.45
3.21

118.4
117.9
117.3
116.6
115.9
115.2

Data calculated on the basis of the normal cabin pressure of 565 mm Hg (0.74 atm) equivalent to normal outside air pressure at
8000 ft, as regulated by the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA).
b
Cabin air carbon dioxide concentration, less the ambient concentration in outside air which is taken as 357 ppm throughout.
c
Obtained by multiplying the produced carbon dioxide partial pressure by the factor 1.1905 (from 1/0.84, where 0.84 is the accepted
value for the Respiratory Quotient). This process allows an accurate accounting of the greater oxygen consumption than carbon
dioxide production, because of the water vapor also produced in normal human respiration (e.g., for glyceryl trioleate:
C57 H104 O6 80 O2 ! 57 CO2 52 H2 O).
d
An ambient oxygen partial pressure of more than 100 mm Hg is normally sucient to avoid the risk of hypoxia in the vast majority of
uncompromised individuals.

16.7 min for the carbon dioxide to exceed the less

stringent 5000 ppmv limit recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) for a healthy worker during an 8 h day, 40 h
work week exposure (ASTM, 1996; Hocking, 1998).
Various additional factors also suggest that the outside air provided to aircraft passengers should be at least
close to the 1520 ft3 /min per person (79.4 L/s) levels
provided in good current building ventilation practise.
In the building scenario, workers live and work locally,
and thus have similar immunities. They also have a
number of options not open to aircraft passengers: a
much larger available air space per person (which serves
to decrease both direct contact, and through-air illness
transmission risks), doors, and often windows which can
be opened, and they can take the occasional 1530 min
break outside. They can more informatively complain if
there is an air quality problem since they comprise a
cohesive communicating group, and they have good
incentives to stay home if they are not well. Most aircraft passengers do not even know that they are now
being provided with as little as 4.5 ft3 /min person (2.1 L/s)
of outside air to their much smaller available space (and
at 3/4 of the pressure of a ground level supply) and,
therefore, few complain. They can come from much
more diverse backgrounds, including dierent countries
(some with serious endemic diseases) and therefore have
dierent immunities, and they disperse at their destinations so that illness rates resulting from the travel,
however caused, are little known. Also, at least for the
less expensive fare structures, there is a strong incentive
for the prospective passenger to y even if they are ill.
It is not the elevated carbon dioxide concentration
itself that is of primary concern, although this can be a
factor in passenger well-being (Endres, 1992; Harding,

1994). Nor is it the depressed oxygen partial pressures,

since even at carbon dioxide concentrations much higher
than normally occurs in aircraft the residual oxygen
partial pressures are still well above those which pose
any signicant risk of hypoxia to the vast majority of
passengers (Table 1). It is the value of the quantitative
tracer of outside air ventilation rates that the carbon
dioxide concentration can provide. What is of particular
concern is the increased risk of disease transmission in
this setting, already raised by the small available air
space per person, if outside air ventilation rates are low
and any of the travellers should happen to be ill with a
disease which is communicable via air (Sexton, 1993;
Holland, 1996). Also relevant to the concern is the
possible subacute or comfort eects of much higher than
normal carbon dioxide concentrations in conjunction
with the lower oxygen partial pressures common at
cruising altitudes, neither of which on their own would
be signicant cause for concern (Harding, 1994). Accumulation of other less well dened trace contaminants in
the cabin space may also make a contribution to discomfort and fatigue factors.
A combination of these factors could have materially
contributed to the growing scientic and public interest
in this issue. As the amount of outside air for aircraft
ventilation has gradually decreased, the number of scientic papers focussed on the subject multiplied, so that
an eight times larger number of publications appeared in
the 198998 period than in the preceding 10 years.
4. Use of carbon dioxide as a ventilation tracer
As a means of verication of ventilation parameters,
it is possible to use the carbon dioxide concentration in

15
20.0
14.0
10.3
11.1

[9.7]
14.2
14.7
15.6
10.4g

[10.4]
19.7
14.9

18.8

17.7

18.8

United Airlines
(1994)

9.7

22.9
26.4
26.1
23.9
17.8
19.3
27.3
22.9
22.8

Nagda et al.
(1989, 1992)

Air exchange rate (hr1 )a

419

173

790
276
319g
428
[620]

149

[210]

334

151
165
120
131
537
494
124
148
419

Cabin volume
(m3 )b

1734

947

32264389
10731196
913922
1320
[1790]

588621

[566]

900

961
8621210
870
644870
2655
2648
940
773941
2654

Calculated ventilation
capacity (L/s)c

380

172

452, 482
188
220
261
328, 375

126

150, 179

234, 260

131
147
115
130
238
400
119
139
287, 400

Passenger
seatingb;d

4.6

5.5

6.79.7
5.76.4
4.2
5.1
[4.8, 5.5]f

4.74.9

[3.2, 3.8]f

3.53.8

7.3
5.98.2
7.6
5.06.7
11.2
6.6
7.9
5.66.8
9.2, 6.6

Ventilation capacity
per passenger (L/s)c;e

Capability or capacity of outside air changes per hour.

Data from Taylor (Jane's All the World's Aircraft 199596, 1996).
c
Referring to outside air ventilation rates. To convert to cubic feet per minute multiply by 2.120.
d
Can vary with model seating options, largest quoted seating capacity given.
e
With a full passenger load, i.e. 100% load factor.
f
Data estimates based on the known air exchange rate of the immediately preceding model are given in square brackets. Conrmed for the Boeing 777 by personal communication
with the Public Relations Oce, the Boeing Aircraft Company, Seattle, WA.
g
Model not specied, presumed to be 767-200.

With recirculation (%)

Airbus Industrie 310 (Fitzpatrick,
1994)
Airbus Industrie 320 (Fitzpatrick,
1994, estimate)f
Boeing 737-300 (Drake and
Johnson, 1990)
Boeing 747 (Malmfors et al., 1989)
Boeing 757 (Moser et al., 1979)
Boeing 767200 (Haugli et al., 1994)g
Boeing 767300
Boeing 777 (Haugli et al., 1994,
estimate)f
McDonnell Douglas DC9-80/MD80(Nagda et al., 1992)
McDonnell Douglas DC10-40
(White and Fenner, 1994)

Without recirculation
Boeing 727-100
Boeing 727-200
Boeing 737-100
Boeing 737-200
Lockheed L1011-1/100
Lockheed L1011-50
McDonnell Douglas DC9-30
McDonnell Douglas DC9-50
McDonnell Douglas DC10-10

Aircraft type

Table 2
Nominal air exchange rates and ventilation capacities of some representative aircraft passenger cabins, assuming 1 atm, 20C (293 K)

606
M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

the air of any enclosed occupied space to determine the

outside air ventilation rate that is being used, if the
number of resting occupants is known (Gothe, 1988;
Olcerst, 1994). The same methods may also be used to
calculate the equilibrium carbon dioxide to be expected
for any given outside air ventilation rate (Hocking,
1998). By taking the average of the oxygen consumption
and carbon dioxide production gures for a seated
resting adult from six authoritative sources we determined that while taking 1216 breaths a minute the
average male would breathe air at the rate of 6.60 L/min,
from which 306 mL/min oxygen would be consumed and
to which would be contributed 278 mL/min carbon dioxide and 30 mL/min water vapour to the exhaled air
(Hocking, 1998). These values are about 10% lower than
the equivalent resting values currently standardized by
ASHRAE (1991), so the ventilation results given here
based on this data are also about 10% lower.
Verication of these methods was obtained by comparing the calculated theoretical ventilation rates obtained above to the results obtained using a long established
empirical formula Eq. (1) (Yaglou et al., 1936).
Required ventilation rate; ft3 = min

100
CO2 Concentration in parts per 10; 000 3:5
1

The two sets of data uniformly agreed to within 2%

(Hocking, 1998). This method of estimating ventilation
rates is most reliable for aircraft which are practising
recirculation, since this is when the passenger cabin air is
most thoroughly mixed (Mattson et al., 1989). Similar
methods may also be used to determine the outside air
per passenger that is provided, either from the published
outside (fresh) air ventilation capability data, and the
normal recirculation rates for aircraft (Table 2(a) and
(b), Nagda et al., 1989, 1992; United Airlines, 1994;
Jane's All the World's Aircraft 199596, 1996), or from
actual measurements of cabin air quality taken during
regularly scheduled ights of passenger aircraft (Table 3,
Vieillefond et al., 1977; Mattson et al., 1989; Nagda
et al., 1989; Malmfors et al., 1991; O'Donnell et al.,
1991; Consumer Reports, 1994; Dechow et al., 1997; van
Natten, 1998). Regardless of the source of the data used,
these results establish that aircraft passengers are not
provided with ASHRAE-, or ASTM-recommended
amounts of outside air for a substantial proportion of
commercial ights (ASHRAE, Standard; ASTM, 1996).
Is this development justied?
5. Airborne illness risk factors
Aircraft practising recirculation accumulate and
more thoroughly mix all of the non-lterable constitu-

607

ents in the recirculated air than aircraft which ventilate

using outside air only (Mattson et al., 1989). One favourable aspect of this recirculation is the slightly increased moisture content of the recycled air which is
contributed from the respiration of passengers, since
high altitude outside air is very dry. However, the increased moisture content of the recirculated air can also
contribute to episodes of condensation and freezing of
moisture on inside parts of the aircraft airframe. After a
number of these cycles this can lead to wet aircraft insulation which adds mass, and requires servicing to remove and dry or replace (Personal communication,
1999). This problem is less likely when recirculation is
not used. Cabin relative humidity can be raised independently of recirculation by lowering the cabin temperature slightly (about 1%/C, Lange, 1969), without
increasing the risk of condensation.
Mixing of the recirculated air which already has had
the ozone substantially removed can also help to
maintain control of ozone concentrations in cabin air to
below recommended levels. However, modern aircraft
are generally able to keep this to an order of magnitude
below the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA)
Standard (for a 3 h exposure) of 0.1 lL/L without this
assistance.
Recirculated air is usually ltered before being mixed
with outside air for return to the passenger cabin.
However, the eciency of the lters used for this purpose varies with airline policy from 90% for 0.5 lm
particles (European Union (EU) nine classication) to
99.97% for 0.3 lm diameter particles (EU 13, or high
eciency particulate air (HEPA) lters, Nagda et al.,
1989; Hocking, 1998). However, the nature of the recirculation process itself reduces the eciency of capture
to well below these specications. In one stationary
study a test aerosol was continuously released into a fullsized room (Miller-Leiden et al., 1996). Seven types of
air lter units, some tted with HEPA lters, were tested
for aerosol removal eciencies with various rates of
ow. The lter tests reduced aerosol concentrations
from 30% to 90%, compared to the baseline condition
using a low two air changes per hour without ltration
(Vieillefond et al., 1977). Clearly from these experiments
in a controlled setting, recirculation with ltration can
achieve a reduction in bioaerosol concentration, but not
to near zero, as the HEPA specications might suggest.
A similar study using a room air cleaner equipped with a
HEPA lters demonstrated a 70% reduction in particulate matter larger than 0.3 lm diameter (Reisman et al.,
1990).
Virus removal from airstreams, even with the high
capture rate of the HEPA lters and certainly with the
lower eciency lters used in some aircraft (Nagda et al.
1989; Dechow et al., 1997) is at best questionable, since
``Epidemiological evidence and other studies indicate
that the airborne viruses that transmit infection are so

608

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

Table 3
Measured and calculated carbon dioxide concentrations in the passenger cabins of commercial aircraft, 19771997
Measured carbon dioxide concentrations (ppmv)a; b;c

Meang
Minimum
Maximum
Distribution, %i
<1000 ppm
10001500 ppm
15002000 ppm
20002500 ppm
>2500 ppm

Non-smoking

1991, 45
Flightse ,
Non-smoking
(O'Donnell,
1991)

1994, 158
Flights,
Mixed
(Consumer
Reports, 1994)

Calculated
Concentrationf
(ppmv)

1562 685
597
4943

1756 660
765
3157

719 233
330
2170

785h
464
1552

1145
771
1682

13
34.5
34
16
3
100.5

13
30.5
17
26
13
99.5

27
30e
36e
36e
0
99

ca. 75
}
}ca. 25
}
}
100

1988, 48
Flightsd ,
Mixed
(Malmfors
et al., 1991)

1989, 92 Flights
(Nagda et al. 1989, 1992)
Smoking

1265 60
850
1930

28
64
8
0
0
100

The earliest aircraft air quality data located were reports of six ights between Paris and Central Africa in 1977 by a DC-10, which
never had more than 600 ppm carbon dioxide, and by a DC-8, which never had over 1000 ppm carbon dioxide (Vieillefond et al., 1997).
b
A 1997 paper giving the most recent cabin air quality data (for models of the Airbus) did not measure carbon dioxide concentrations
(Dechow et al., 1997).
c
van Netten (1996) analyzed the cabin air of 4 BAe 146-200 aircraft and a de Havilland Dash 8-100 using continuous data logging (van
Netten, 1998). Reported concentrations were carbon dioxide, 8002700 ppm (BAe), 1100 ppm (Dash); oxygen, 19.621.95 (BAe),
20.821.9% (Dash); carbon monoxide, 0 ppm (3 BAe a/c), 3 ppm (BAe, with malfunction).
d
Papers of 1989 and 1991 gave maxima and minima, and averages for the carbon dioxide concentrations for a total of 48 ights under
smoking and non-smoking conditions measured in 1988 with averages given as follows: DC 9-21, 990 ppm; DC 9-41, 1300 ppm; and
MD-80s, 1310 ppm (Malmfors et al., 1991).
e
It is only possible to give approximate percentages for these carbon dioxide concentration intervals since published intervals were
dierent (O'Donnell et al., 1991). Exact reported intervals were cited as ventilation rates as follows: 9/33 at >15 ft3 /min (i.e., <1000 ppm
CO2 ), 24/33 at <15 ft3 /min (>1000 ppm CO2 ), and 18/33 at <10 ft3 /min (>1340 ppm CO2 ).
f
Mean equilibrium carbon dioxide concentrations with a full passenger load calculated from the published outside air ventilation rates
of all of the commercial passenger aircraft of Table 2(a) and (b), using the standard equation,
R L=h
;
Ci Co  3600 s=h
R L=h
Co :
rearranged to the form : Ci
ventilation rate L=s  3600 s=h

Ventilation rate L=s

Substitutions used were the resting rate of production of carbon dioxide by an average man, R 16:7 L/h, ventilation rates as given in
Table 2(a) and (b), and concentration of carbon dioxide in the outside air, Co 0:000357 (357 ppm). The percentages tabulated are for
all the types of aircraft of Table 2(a) and (b), and used the concentration ranges equivalent to the outside air ventilation capacities
given, rather than the number of aircraft of each type that is currently in service, since that data is not available.
g
Variation is expressed as one standard deviation.
h
Just after take-o.
i
Do not total to 100% because of rounding errors.

small that no known ltering technique is eective''

(ASHRAE, 1991). While some of the surveys of passenger cabin air quality report quantitative measurement
of bacteria, none have tried to detect the presence of
viruses (Nagda et al., 1989; Malmfors et al., 1991;
O'Donnell et al., 1991; Nagda et al., 1992; Consumer
Reports, 1994; Vieillefond et al., 1997; Dechow et al.,
1997; van Netten, 1998), in at least one case because of
the inappropriateness of the summer contract period for
doing this (Nagda et al., 1989). (The presence of viruses
suspended in air may be assessed through amplication

of minute amounts of viable material captured on a lter

via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques (White
and Fenner, 1994).) Low eciency lters, pinholes, poor
lter-frame sealing, gasket leaks, inadequate maintenance, etc., or ltration of only part of the recycle air
stream can all contribute to the dispersion of bacteria
and viruses through the passenger cabin (ASHRAE,
1988; Singh, 1990).
The bacteria measured in one study, although mostly
non-pathogenic, exceeded the normal concentration
found in other indoor spaces, with droplet infection over

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

short distances acknowledged as a health risk (Dechow

et al., 1997). Other research has found lower concentrations of bacteria in aircraft than in other indoor
spaces (Wick and Irvine, 1995). Even with a somewhat
lower concentration of viable material on an aircraft, the
much smaller available air space per person than in
other public spaces still increases the risk of infection in
aircraft using recirculation relative to aircraft which use
one-pass ventilating systems. This may be one reason
why much more generous amounts of outside air, or
outside air mixed with air recirculated from the cockpit,
often provides the ight deck air supply (Customer
Services Division, 1993). Another factor might be an
airline (and passenger) interest in the maintenance of
optimum alertness and reduced fatigue of the ight
crew. The cooling of avionics instrumentation and the
need to cope with the higher solar load here, than in the
rest of the aircraft, also contribute to this need. However, the last requirement could just as readily be met by
recirculated air.
6. Recent airborne illness incidents
These factors may have contributed to a number of
recent episodes of airborne illness among air travellers.
Several cases of Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission have been conrmed, both among crew members
(Driver et al., 1994), and from an infected passenger to
nearby passengers and up to 13, and 15 rows away in
aircraft with recirculation (Kenyon et al., 1996). Detailed investigation established that the more distant
passengers made frequent visits to other passengers near
the index case, so that it was also possible that their
illness was caused by direct exposure. The possibility of
aerial transmission in the more distant cases in aircraft
practising recirculation is very real, since the general
directions of airow in the passenger cabin are strongly
top to bottom with a slight trend from front to back
(Drake and Johnson, 1990; Oldeld, 1996). Outside air,
once an aircraft has reached an altitude of a few thousand feet, always has a lower count of viable material
than recycled air (Nagda et al., 1989; Dechow et al.,
1997). Thus, with outside air ventilation only, this
analogy would have been much less likely from air
transmission, at least for the more distant transmission
cases, since these were seated ``upstream'' in the general
cabin ventilation airow.
Six other possible aircraft TB transmission events
have been thoroughly investigated (McFarland et al.,
1993; Anon., 1995). These concluded that transmission
did occur in two cases and was not demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt in the remaining cases. Despite
the few veried instances of TB transmission aboard
aircraft, these cases become more signicant to air
travellers when it is realised that this disease is endemic

609

in many parts of the world, and that single or multi-drug

resistant varieties have shown up in increasing frequency
in recent years (Holton, 1995; US Public Health Service,
1997; Weinbaum et al., 1997).
Properly maintained HEPA lters capable of trapping 99.97% of 0.3 lm particles are able to eciently
remove bacteria of typically 0.515 lm diameters. Viruses, which lie in the 0.0030.05 lm diameter size
range, are much more dicult to trap (ASHRAE, 1991)
especially by the less ecient lters used on some aircraft (Nagda et al., 1989; Dechow et al., 1997). Consequently the air-borne viral illnesses such as inuenza, the
rhinoviruses, measles, shingles, infectious mononucleosis, some enteroviruses etc., present a higher risk of
transmission than bacterial illnesses, if an infected passenger boards a ight which practises recirculation. Few
instances of transmission of diseases of this type aboard
aircraft have been published in the scientic literature,
even though viruses are estimated to cause 5060% of all
community-acquired illnesses (Nagda et al., 1989). Perhaps this is because this type of event would usually be
much more dicult to track. One example of circumstantially aggravated transmission of this type that was
trackable occurred to 72% of the passengers aboard an
aircraft during a 3-h ground delay with a non-operating
ventilation system (amounting to 100% ``recycle'', but
without a lter) some 20 years ago (Moser et al., 1979).
This episode was well documented because of an unusual set of circumstances: all of the passengers were
travelling to the same small town, and many consulted
the same alert local physician.
An episode of 41 (68% of those exposed) cases of
inuenza transmission, which occurred in 1986 associated with a DC-9 aircraft, was also closely examined
(Klontz et al., 1989). In this aircraft, which does not use
recirculation, it was not possible to prove whether the
infection was spread by true airborne suspended particle
transmission or by direct, person-to-person contact.
Again, the whole group aected were travelling between
the same points, which drew attention to the occurrence
and made the epidemiological investigation more
straightforward.
Less well documented newspaper accounts describe
u-type vomiting illness episodes rst caught by 105
passengers on an aircraft using recirculation on a ight
from Birmingham to Turin (Cadwalladr, 1998). This
was followed by another 72 passengers on the same
aircraft and routing on the following day, at which time
the aircraft was taken out of service for cleaning. Food
poisoning, and the water were ruled out, as causative
factors. The symptoms were apparently caused by a
small round structured virus, probably spread by a
combination of direct, and aerial transmission (Owen
Caul, 1994).
There is usually some group homogeneity factor,
e.g., a common point of origin or destination or a

610

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

professional or common interest link, that aids communication between passengers, doctors, and airlines in
these well recorded instances. However, these are rare
occurrences in air travel. The frequency of disease
transmission is rarely noticed by individual passengers,
even if several should become ill on a single ight, because of their dispersal and usual lack of communication
once they have left the ight. Each aected passenger
may have the impression that they are an isolated case,
and hence do not ``raise a fuss'' other than to see their
physician. No one has yet surveyed illness transmission
incidence among passengers to better quantify this risk.
However, a sta survey of this type was recently conducted by Scandinavian Airlines, who found 23 times
the frequency of illnesses potentially transmissable by air
(skin and eye problems, respiratory infections and colds,
and digestive disturbances) for ight attendants than for
ight crew (Haugli et al., 1994). Direct, person-to-person
disease transmission could also have been a contributing
factor to this outcome, of course. It is possible to surmise the eect of a more homogeneous cohort of 530 air
travellers who would have had similar immunities from
the report of a US Army Aviation Medicine Clinic. They
found from 1/3 to 1/2 the incidence of illness among
ight crew (undierentiated tasks) than found in the
Swedish study, although this study did show a slightly
higher incidence of respiratory diseases in ight, than
in non-ight crew, 20.3% and 17.4%, respectively
(Fitzpatrick, 1994).
7. Possible eects of elevated carbon dioxide and trace
contaminants
Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) are among the principal ``trace'' contaminants that have been routinely
measured in a number of aircraft air quality studies.
There is substantial unanimity concerning the desirable
objective levels for the last three contaminants. However, the 1000 ppmv suggested ceiling concentration for
carbon dioxide remains controversial, depending on the
stakeholder consulted. This recommendation by both
ASHRAE and the ASTM is primarily based on ground
level conditions. At a typical cabin pressure of 0.74 atm
(565 mm Hg), which is equivalent to an altitude of
8000 ft (2440 m), the physiological eect of high carbon
dioxide concentrations is likely to be greater than at
ground level conditions, since at this pressure there is
26% lower oxygen partial pressure available to passengers than under ordinary conditions at sea level. Continuous measurement of aircraft cabin oxygen
concentrations in one study has also established a short
term 2.3% decrease in the normal atmospheric oxygen
concentration of 21.9% (van Netten, 1998), which causes
a further 10.5% (2.3%/21.9%) decrease in the oxygen

available to passengers for respiration. If the lower oxygen partial pressure is coupled to the measured short
term decrease of oxygen concentrations the net loss in
oxygen availability drops to 63.5% (100)36.5) of the
normal oxygen available outdoors at sea level.
The possible physiologic eects of high carbon dioxide concentrations in combination with lower than
normal oxygen partial pressures does not appear to have
been quantitatively evaluated. However, it is clear that
decreased availability of oxygen is likely to increase, not
decrease the sensitivity to high carbon dioxide concentrations (Endres, 1992; Harding, 1994). Taking this
factor into account, together with the realization that
aircraft passengers include infants, the elderly, and the
chronically ill, it is clear that aircraft cabins should have
the capability to provide at least the same fresh air
provision as is generally made available in ground level
public buildings to give reasonable, if not equivalent,
levels of comfort and well-being to passengers and crew.
8. Cost of outside air
Airlines claim that the provision of the ASHRAErecommended levels of 15 ft3 /min (7 l/s) of outside air to
the passenger cabin is expensive, without being specic.
The best published estimates available give the big picture of the airline cost-saving from practising recirculation variously as 15 cents per passenger hour (for a
DC-10, Nagda et al., 1989), US$60,000 per average size
operating aircraft per year (Nagda et al., 1989; Oldeld,
1996; Dear, 1998), or 12% of the operating fuel cost
(Nagda et al., 1989; Klontz et al., 1989). Better detail
from the Douglas and Boeing aircraft companies give
consumption gures of 0.009, or 0.015 US gal of jet fuel
per hour depending on aircraft, for each cubic foot per
minute of outside air supplied (Committee on Airline
Cabin Air Quality, 1986). This amounts to an average of
0.012 US gal of jet fuel per hour for each cubic foot per
minute of outside air supplied (Oldeld, 1996). The rst
cost estimates given evidently focus on the airlines
perspective. The fuel consumption data permit costs to
be estimated from the passengers perspective. For a jet
fuel (kerosine) cost of $1/US gal, these data give a range
of 4.57.5 cents, or an average of 6 cents per passenger
hour as the energy cost of supplying 5 ft3 /min per person, and a range of 13.522.5 cents, or an average of 18
cents per passenger hour to provide 15 ft3 /min per person of outside air for ventilation. Thus, to reduce the
outside air provided per passenger from 15 to 5 ft3 /min
saves the airline an average of 12 cents per passenger
hour. For 4, or 10 h ights this would amount to an
average of $0.48, or $1.20 per passenger for the trip.
Each of the cost estimates given above relate to isolated, one-stakeholder savings, not to a system or societal saving. From the perspective of the isolated airline

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

system, it has not been possible to nd any study of the

relationship between the fuel cost saving experienced by
the airlines practising recirculation, and the cost which
might have to be added to their operating costs from the
possible increased rescheduling of ight attendants.
Even for the isolated airline system, particularly at
higher risk times of the year when more passengers who
may be ill are travelling (Nagda et al., 1989), there could
be a net cost to air recirculation.
Today all social structures, including corporate entities, have a responsibility to consider all the stakeholders aected in situations of this kind, particularly in
view of the fact that the average air traveller is not yet
aware of the practice of air recirculation and is thus not
in a position to have a choice. A full (true) evaluation of
the costs in this situation requires a multistakeholder, or
Pareto-admissible consensus (Dorfman and Jacoby,
1977), such that a system optimal, or better still a societally-optimal economy is achieved in the process. If
even one passenger becomes ill on a ight as a result of
recirculation, then the societal costs easily exceed the
airline perception of fuel saving on that ight. Take, for
instance, a passenger on a 4 h ight of a 200 seat aircraft
using 5 ft3 /min outside air who contracts inuenza as a
result. If that person visits a doctor and takes 2 days o
work to recover, it could cost a total of $250 (doctors
fee, $50; plus 2 $100/day pay loss). The reduced outside
air saves the airline $96 ($0.12/pass hour 4 h 200
passengers) over the cost of providing 15 ft3 /min outside
air per passenger. The airline would have to make at
least a 10 h ight for airline savings to equal societal
costs, by this measure. This is without taking into account the value of the passenger well-being/ jet lag factor, which though known to be multifaceted to include
fatigue, stress, crossing of time zones etc., also has an
air quality component (ASHRAE, 1989, Standard;
Fitzpatrick, 1994).
The incremental cost of eliminating recirculation and
providing the recommended 15 ft3 /min (7 L/s) of outside
air or more, is relatively at (Table 4). It is only at
outside air supply rates above about 30 ft3 /min (14 L/s)
that the energy requirement and hence the cost of providing high ventilation rates starts to rise exponentially.
This cost arises from the pressure dierential of cabin air
to outside air, which at 30,00040,000 ft (915012,200 m)
operating altitude is typically about 0.5 atm.
9. Proposals for improvement
Agencies such as ASHRAE, the US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the
FAA, the US Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), the UK Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA) etc. that are currently involved in reviewing
various aspects of the air quality of passenger aircraft

611

Table 4
Outside air ventilation rates required per person for various
carbon dioxide concentration objectives under ambient conditions

a
b

Carbon dioxide
concentration
target (ppmv)

Ventilation rate
per person
ft3 /mina

L/sb

400
425
450
475
500
550
600
700
800
900
1000
1200
1400
1600
2000

229
145
106
83.3
68.7
50.9
40.5
28.6
22.2
18.0
15.3
11.7
9.3
7.8
5.9

108
68.2
49.9
39.3
32.4
24.0
19.1
13.5
10.5
8.5
7.2
5.5
4.4
3.7
2.8

Multiple of
1000 ppm
ventilation
rate
15.4
9.7
7.1
5.6
4.6
3.4
2.7
1.9
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.76
0.61
0.51
0.39

ft3 /min calculated from l=s  2:120.

Calculated using Eq. (2) from footnotes of Table 3.

operations should ensure that they have balanced representation from not only aircraft builders and airline
representatives but also ight crew, ight attendants
(e.g., the Association of Flight Attendants), and passenger associations in their meetings involved with the
setting of standards in this area (Fitzpatrick, 1994;
Smith, 1996; Cox and Miro, 1997; Dear, 1998). Ensuring
multi-stakeholder, or Pareto-admissible representation
in this fashion will help to ensure that the results will be
more acceptable to all parties, ultimately achieving a
societally optimal solution. It could also reduce the
frustration felt by passengers and ight attendants over
their lack of inuence of this factor, the gap that now
exists in the cost benet cycle: those making the cost
decisions are currently not experiencing the air quality
eects of those decisions.
Several recommendations have been made regarding
the importance of further biological assessment of aircraft cabin air, and with reference to viruses in particular
(Nagda et al., 1989; Holland, 1996). Information gained
from such further measurements coupled to a wellplanned independent survey of the health of air travellers could more quantitatively establish the extent of the
problem. Business reply cards could be used and the
results on receipt could be keyed to type of ventilation
system employed by the subject aircraft. The study could
probably be better focussed at less cost if it were
scheduled to be undertaken at a time when ill passengers
were more common, e.g., under late winter conditions
(Nagda et al., 1989). Studies of this kind are already underway (Smith, 1996). After an all-stakeholders

612

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

review of the results it should be possible to come to

Pareto-admissable decisions regarding the volume of
outside air supplied, the fraction of recirculated air used,
lter specications (if needed), and even policies related
to the handling of ill prospective passengers, all pursued
to improve passenger well being at no more than modest
cost. Surely most passengers would be pleased to accept
the 618 cents per passenger hour incremental cost, to be
provided with 15 ft3 /min of entirely outside air, rather
than 1/3 of this plus recycled air. This was certainly the
passenger attitude reected recently by disgruntled passengers with the pasting of coins of this value to letters
of air quality complaints to airlines, along with the
comment that if the ``reduction of fresh air in airline
cabins is to save fuel, ...then its a bad idea'' (Rick,
1994). It is also reected in the growing compulsion of
passengers to purchase their own compensating prophylaxis in the form of a nasal mist in a commercial
dispenser containing 0.9% sterile saline, such as Rhinaris, Otrivin, or store brand equivalents, or naturopathic
remedies such as echinacea, at a per passenger cost of 5
10 times the airlines savings to reduce outside airow.
Aircraft operators should provide a minimum of
15 ft3 /min (7 L/s) of outside air per passenger at all times,
whether or not recycle is practised. This level of outside
air is the minimum necessary to maintain carbon dioxide
concentrations at 1000 ppmv (Hocking, 1998), the basis
of the ASHRAE/ASTM recommendations (ASHRAE,
Standard; ASTM, 1996), and would help to ensure little
contribution to ``jet lag'' felt by passengers or cabin crew
from this factor. Even more importantly it would help to
ensure some resilience to the air supply in the event of a
minor system malfunction. No level of ltration could
accomplish these benets. It might be appropriate to
relax this recommendation to say 7 ft3 /min to provide an
additional margin of operational safety during takeo,
and for a short period during climb when the fuel cost
for ventilation is the most severe. An expander turbine
operated on the exhausted air to compress a part of the
outside air intake might help to decrease the energy costs
of this requirement. So could recirculation of the relatively pristine ight deck air through the passenger
cabin, with negligible disease transmission risk. The
normal healthy status of the ight crew, coupled to the
proportionally lower consumption of oxygen and contribution of carbon dioxide to the 3060 times higher per
person outside air ow rate through the cockpit area
(Wick and Irvine, 1995), would both help to ensure that
this would generally be of better quality than recirculated cabin air.
It is evident from the number of cabin air measurements that were less than 1000 ppm carbon dioxide
(Table 3) that many aircraft still provide 15 ft3 /min of
outside air per passenger, and some supply more than
this. This practise could be used as a promotional feature by airlines which might be a stronger motivation for

passengers than the familiar ``air miles''. To do this, the

outside air provided would have to be specied in a clear
standardized way, such as volume of outside air per unit
time per passenger, to avoid any risk of ambiguity.
``Outside air changes per hour'' varies widely with the
available air space per person, and ``ventilation rate''
does not distinguish between outside air and recirculated
air and are therefore inappropriate.
Use of recirculated air should be limited to not more
than 50% of that supplied to the passenger cabin, as a
currently reasonable compromise. At cruising altitudes,
outside air always has a lower bacterial/viral count than
recirculated air (Nagda et al., 1989; Dechow et al.,
1997), which is the basis of the suggestions to reduce this
fraction via the processes of the rst and second recommendations. Airlines could also use a reduction in the
fraction of recirculated air used for ventilation as an
eective promotional feature.
All airlines which recirculate ventilation air to the
passenger cabin should be required to employ regularly
serviced HEPA lters for cleaning the recycle air stream.
Perhaps the current, approximately annual (each
``C check'') service interval (Wright, 1999) for changing
lters should be reviewed and shortened, particularly for
aircraft carrying smokers. The costs involved in replacing the 90% (for 0.5 lm particles) ecient lters used in
some aircraft with HEPA lters will be small, relative to
the system savings and improved passenger comfort that
are likely to be realized as a result. Some airlines have
already adopted this policy (Nagda et al., 1989, 1992;
Oldeld, 1996; Anon., 1998). Some already use ultra low
particle air lters (ULPA, 99.99995% ecient for
0.12 lm particles), which perform even better than
HEPA lters for the virus fraction of particles (Holland,
1996). These are more expensive, but their wider use
could help to bring unit costs down.
Further measures which could be taken to sterilize
ltered air before recirculation should be considered.
Ozone from outside air or generated for the purpose
could not be easily used for this, since the concentration
required for lethality to microorganisms is higher than
regulations permit for human exposure. However, sterilization could be accomplished by mercury resonance
irradiation of 253.7 nm wavelength, produced by low
pressure mercury arc lamps. This frequency is lethal to
microorganisms (bacteria and viruses) e.g., (Bank et al.,
1990; Tessman, 1990). Lamp cost and operating power
requirements are low, less than 50 watts per 1000 ft3 /min
(Tamblyn, 1999). Careful design would be necessary to
ensure exposure of the whole of the air stream to an
adequate radiation intensity, since one recent study
found this measure ineective, probably because of serious shadowing from the mounting (Salie et al., 1995).
Airlines should consider encouraging passengers who
are obviously coughing, sneezing, etc., to wear face
masks provided by the airline much of the time, out of

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

concern for their fellow passengers. This would eectively reduce the dissemination of communicable bacteria or viruses at source, independently of any other
measures which may be taken. This has been proven to
be very eective in a hospital setting, even in conjunction
with a HEPA-ltered air supply (Miller-Leiden et al.,
1996). With proper lter design, a face mask could also
help raise the humidity of the personal air breathed by
the wearer. Masks are already in common use in public
transport and public spaces in Japan.
Those passengers ill with TB and still contagious are
already recommended not to travel by public carrier to
minimize risk to the travelling public (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevensin, 1996). This policy could
also be encouraged for any ill person, possibly involving negotiations between airline passenger associations
and the airlines to develop mutually acceptable procedures to allow people so aected to reschedule their
ights. They could also consider barring obviously ill
passengers from boarding, which has occasionally occurred, although this option would be fraught with
diculties.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks the University of Victoria for
support, and M.J.R. Clark, J.S. Haywood, Diana
Hocking, Drake Hocking, and A. Tarr for helpful discussion. He is also grateful to many contacts in the
subject eld for contributions of supplementary information, who are acknowledged where possible in the
references. He thanks the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy (Doncaster, UK) for permission to reproduce Fig. 1.
References
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 1988. ASHRAE Equipment
Handbook. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, pp. 10.110.11.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 1989. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, ASHRAE Standard 62-1989.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, 1989, pp. 8, 9.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 1991. ASHRAE Handbook.
Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Applications, SI
Edition. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, pp. 7.2, 9.2, 11.3.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Standard. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, p. 3.

613

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1996.

Provisional Standard Guide for Using Indoor Carbon
Dioxide Concentrations to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality
and Ventilation, Designation: PS 40-95. West Conshohocken, PA.
Anon., 1995. Exposure of passengers and ight crew to
Mycobacterium tuberculosis on commercial aircraft, 1992
1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 44 (8), 137
140.
Anon., 1998. United to install cabin air lters. The Denver Post,
24 February, p. C-02.
Argirou, A., Asimakopoulos, D., Balaras, C., Dascalaki, E.,
Lagoudi, A., Loizidou, M., Santamouris, M., Tselepidaki,
I., 1994. On the energy consumption and indoor air quality
in oce and hospital buildings in Athens, Hellas. Energy
Convers. Mgmt. 35, 385394.
Bank, H.L., John, J., Schmehl, M.K., Dratch, R.J., 1990.
Bactericidal eectiveness of modulated UV light. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 58 (2), 38883889.
Bourbeau, J., Brisson, C., Allaire, S., 1997. Prevalence of the
sick building syndrome symptoms in oce workers before,
and six months and three years after being exposed to a
building with an improved ventilation system. Occup. and
Environ. Medicine 54, 4953.
Cadwalladr, C., 1998. 72 hit by virus in cabin air, The Daily
Telegraph, 17 January 1998, p. 2; We caught TB on ight to
New York, The Daily Telegraph, London, 5 February 1998,
p. 4; Similar accounts also appeared in The Herald,
Glasgow, 5 February 1998, p. 7, and The Scotsman, 6
February 1998, p. 16.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA), 1996.
International Travelers health information, tuberculosis
risk on aircraft. URL: ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Travel/additional_info/tb_risk.txt, p. 1.
Committee on Airliner Cabin Air Quality, 1986. The Airliner
Cabin Environment, Air Quality and Safety, National
Reseach Council (USA). National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 60, 61.
Consumer Reports, 1994. Breathing on a jet plane, how fresh is
the air? 1994. Consumer Reports 59 (8), 501506.
Cox, J.E., Miro, C.R., 1997. Aircraft cabin air quality.
ASHRAE J. 39 (4), 22.
Customer Services Division, 1993. Cabin Air Quality/Cabin Air
Flow Data. Boeing Service Letter, Seattle, WA, 23 July.
Dear, C., 1998. Air sick getting fresh on board. Heating and
Aircond., 2426.
Dechow, M., Sohn, H., Steinhanses, J., 1997. Concentrations of
selected contaminants in cabin air of Airbus aircrafts (sic).
Chemosphere 35 (1/2), 2131.
Dorfman, R., Jacoby. H.D., 1977. In: Dorfman, R., Dorfman,
N.S. (Eds.), Economics of the Environment; Selected
Readings, 2nd ed. W.W. Norton and Company, New York,
pp. 260304.
Drake, J.W., Johnson, D.E., 1990. Measurements of certain
environmental tobacco-smoke components on long range
ights. Aviat., Space, and Environ. Med. 61, 531542.
Driver, C.R., Valway, S.E., Morgan, W.M., Onorato, I.M.,
Castro, K.G., 1994. Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis associated with air travel. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 272
(13), 10311035.

614

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

Endres, G., 1992. Smokescreen over cabin air quality. Interavia

Aerospace Rev. 47, 4445.
Fitzpatrick, D.T., 1994. A comparison of ight and non-ight
sick call visits to a US Army Aviation Medicine Clinic.
Aviat., Space and Environ. Med. 62 (12), 11891191.
Gothe, C.-J., 1988. A simple method of estimating air recirculation in ventilation systems. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 49, 6669.
Harding, R., 1994. Cabin air quality in aircraft. Brit. Med. J.
308, 427428.
Haugli, L., Skogstad, A., Hellesoy, O.H., 1994. Health, sleep
and mood perceptions reported by airline crews ying short
and long hauls. Aviat., Space and Environ. Med. 65 (1),
2734.
Hocking, M.B., 1998. Indoor air quality: recommendations
relevant to aircraft passenger cabins. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc.
J. 59, 446454.
Holland Jr, C.R., 1996. Current state of the air in the air.
Nonwovens Industry 27 (2), 4260.
Holton, D., 1995. Tuberculosis, a widespread health issue. Can.
Fam. Physician 41, 14471449.
Jane's All the World's Aircraft 199596, 1996. Taylor, J.W.R.
(Ed.), Also Referred to Material from Editions of 198586
(1986), 198081 (1981), 197475 (1975), and 197374 (1974).
Jane's Publishing, New York.
Kenyon, T.A., Valway, S.E., Ihle, W.W., Onorato, I.M.,
Castro, K.G., 1996. Transmission of multidrug-resistant
Mycobacterium tuberculosis during a long airplane ight.
New Engl. J. of Med. 334, 933938.
Klontz, K.C., Hynes, N.A., Gunn, R.A., Wilder, M.H.,
Harmon, M.W., Kendal, A.P., 1989. An outbreak of
inuenza A/Taiwan/1/86 (H1N1) infections at a naval base
and its association with airplane travel. Am. J. Epidemiol.
129 (2), 341348.
Kreiss, K., 1993. The sick building syndrome in oce buildings
A breath of fresh air. New Engl. J. Med. 328, 877878.
Lange, N.A. (Ed.), Langes Handbook of Chemistry, 10th ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969, p. 1426.
Malmfors, T., Thorburn, D., Westlin, A., 1989. Air quality in
passengers cabins of DC-9 and MD-80 aircraft. Environ.
Technol. Lett. 10, 613628. Cited by Olander, L., Westlin,
A., 1991. Airow in aircraft cabins, Staub-Reinhaltung der
Luft 51, 283288.
Mattson, M.E., Callahan, J.F., Haley, N.J., 1989. Passive
smoking on commercial airline ights. J. Am. Med. Assoc.
261 (6), 867872.
McFarland, J.W., Hickman, W.C.., Osterholm, M.T., MacDonald, K.L., 1993. Exposure to Mycobacterium tuberculosis during air travel. Lancet 342, 112113.
Menzies, D., Pastor, J., Nunes, F., Chan, C.H., 1997. Eect of a
new ventilation system on health and well being of oce
workers. Arch. Environ. Health 52, 360367.
Menzies, R., Tamblyn, R., Farant, J.-P., Hanley, J., Nunes, F.,
Tamblyn, R., 1993. The eect of varying levels of outdoorair supply on the symptoms of sick building syndrome. The
New Engl. J. Med. 328, 821827.
Miller-Leiden, S., Lobascio, C., Nazaro, W.W., 1996. Eectiveness of in-room air ltration and dilution ventilation for
tuberculosis infection control. J. Air and Waste Manag.
Assoc. 46, 869882.

Moser, M.R., Bender, T.R., Margolis, H.S., Noble, G.R.,

Kendal, A.P., Ritter, D.G., 1979. An outbreak of inuenza
aboard a commercial airliner. Am. J. Epidemiol. 110, 16.
Nagda, N.L., Fortmann, R.C., Koontz, M.D., Baker, S.R.,
Ginevan, M.E., 1989. Airliner Cabin Environment: Contaminant Measurements Health Risks and Mitigation Options. Report No. DOT-P-15-89-5. US Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC.
Nagda, N.L., Koontz, M.D., Konheim, A.G., Hammond, S.K.,
1992. Measurement of cabin air quality aboard commercial
airliners. Atmos. Environ. A 26, 22032210.
O'Donnell, A., Donini, G., Nguyen, V.H., 1991. Air quality,
ventilation, temperature and humidity in aircraft. ASHRAE
J. 33 (4), 4246.
Olcerst, R., 1994. Measurement of outdoor and recirculated air
percentages by carbon dioxide tracer. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc.
J. 56, 525528.
Oldeld, D.G., 1996. Cabin air ltration. Mining Technol.
London 78, 240243.
Owen Caul, E., 1994. Small round structured viruses: airborne
transmission and hospital control. Lancet 8908, 12401242.
Personal communication, 1999. Frank Sloan, Sloan Aerospace,
Toronto. See also Krista Foss, Why dont they stop the rain
in the plane? and: Airlines, attendants at odds on wet
planes, The Globe and Mail, Toronto, 6 July, pp. A1, and
A9.
Reisman, R.E., Mauriello, P.M., Davis, G.R., Georgitis, J.W.,
De Masi, J.M., 1990. A double blind study of the eectiveness of a high eciency particulate air (HEPA) lter in the
treatment of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis and
asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 85, 10501057.
Rhodes, W.W., Rihaldi, M.G., Gorman, G.W., 1995. Reduction
and growth inhibition of microorganisms in commercial and
institutional environments. Environ. Health 58, 1219.
Rick, J., 1994. Business update. The Des Moines Register, 21
March 21, p. 3.
Salie, F., Scarpino, P., Clark, S., Willeke, K., 1995. Laboratory
evaluation of airborne microbial reduction by an ultraviolet
light positioned in a modied hollow ceiling fan blade. Am.
Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 56, 987992.
Sexton, K., 1993. An inside look at air pollution. EPA J. 19 (4),
912.
Singh, T.M., 1990. Introduction to HEPA ltration systems.
TAPPI J. 73, 123125.
Smith, A.J., 1996. Cabin air quality in aircraft: What is the
problem. What is being done or what can be done about it?
Who can do it and how? J. Air Law and Comm., 721754.
Tamblyn, R.T., 1999. Ultraviolet germicidal control in oces
and schools. Can. Property Manag. Magazine, June/July
issue, 33.
Tessman, I., 1990. Documentation of the claim that modulation
of UV light pulses increases the bactericidal eectiveness of
the light (and reply). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58 (2),
778779.
US Public Health Service, 1997. Department of Health and
Human Services, TB Notes, Multiple Drug Resistant TB,
No. 4, pp. 1520.
United Airlines, 1994. Cabin air quality. Partners in Safety,
Special Edition. Winter/Spring Issue, 18.

M.B. Hocking / Chemosphere 41 (2000) 603615

615

van Netten, C., 1998. Air quality and health eects associated
with the operation of BAe 146200 aircraft. Appl. Occup.
Environ. Hyg. 13 (10), 733739.
Vieillefond, H., Fourn, P., Auret, R., 1977. Characteristics in
the atmosphere of long-range transport aircraft cabins.
Aviat., Space and Environ. Med. 45 (6), 503507.
Weinbaum, C., Ridzon, R., Valway, S., Onorato, I., 1997. TB
Notes, Division of TB Elimination, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. No. 4, 12.

White, D.O., Fenner, F.J., 1994. Medical Virology, 4th ed.

Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 202210.
Wick, R.L., Irvine, L.A., 1995. The microbiological composition of airliner cabin air. Aviat., Space and Environ. Med.
66, 220224.
Wright, K., 1999. Pall Aerospace, Clearwater FL personal
communication, 5 January.
Yaglou, C.P., Riley, E.C., Coggins, D.I., 1936. Ventilation
requirements. Trans. Am. Soc. Heating Vent. Eng. 42, 133162.

Note added in proof (veries data for the Boeing 777

(Table 2) and updates Table 3): Eight Boeing 777 commercial airline ights, four domestic (16002400 km) and
four international (>4800 km) were monitored. Outside
air provision was 8.1 ft3 /min (3.8 L/s) per person on the
domestic ights, and 9.6 ft3 /min (4.5 L/s) on international. Overall measured CO2 concentrations ranged
from 942 to 1959 ppm, with ight means ranging from

1252 to 1758 ppm, and an overall mean of 1469 ppm.

The mean for domestic ights was 1613 ppm, and for
international was 1405 ppm except when the recirculation fans were turned o when this dropped to 798 ppm.
Aft galley CO2 readings were 2500 to 4915 ppm, with a
mean of 2840 ppm. (Pierce, W.M., Janczewski, J.N.,
Roethlisberger, B., Janczewski, M.G., 1999. Air quality
on commercial aircraft. ASHRAE Journal 41 (9), 2634.