William F. GaleAuburn University

Airliner cabinenvironment research

overviewPart 1 – Health related topics

Cabin environment

LeadAuburn University

Co-leadsHarvard UniversityPurdue University

Core teamBoise State UniversityKansas State UniversityU. of California BerkeleyU. Med. & D. New Jersey

Cross-disciplinary team

Focus

Near-termInterim & iterative approaches

~ 40 industry partnersIndustry collaboration

ManufacturersOperators/crewsSecurity

Partnerships

TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reportedTRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulatedTRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or

characteristic proof-of conceptTRL 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environmentTRL 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environmentTRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant

environment (ground or space)TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in a space environmentTRL 8 Actual system completed and “flight qualified” through test and

demonstration (ground or space)TRL 9 Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations

TRL descriptions fromJohn C. Mankins Technology Readiness Levels, A White PaperAdvanced Concepts Office. Office of Space Access and Technology, NASA, 1995

NASA TRL scaleWhere do ACER & industry partners fit in?

ACER

ind.

Ozone

Pesticides

Cabin pressure

Air quality incidents & filters

In-flight measurements

Contaminant transport

Sensors

Decontamination

Infectious disease transmission

Integrated R & D program

CurrentCurrent NewNew

Ozone projectDrivers

Industry need: want longer-life ozone convertersPublic good: acceptable ozone levels?

How frequently do flights exceed FARs?Are current FARs appropriate?

TasksIn-flight ozone samplingOzone chemistryHuman interactions

Ozone tangible outcomes

Lower maintenance costsOzone converter pre-filtersto enhance converter lifeJoint with manufacturers

Informed basis for FARsGet rid of “the wrong stuff”

Byproducts worse than ozone itselfNeed to target the right chemistry

Drivers“Disinsection” to protect public health/agriculture/ecosystemsMandated by some governmentsMost work is for buildings Limited knowledge of exposure in cabin

TasksDetermine passenger/crew exposures & health implicationsDevelop guidelines

Pesticide project

Reduced disinsection costsReduction/elimination of pesticide use addresses crew concernsMake case to request relief from burdensome patchwork of regulations

Shows if disinsection harmful or notConsiders pesticide alternativesDoes disinsection actually work?

Pesticides tangible outcomes

DriversChamber data is forhealthy individualsAging population Health-compromisedpassengers

TasksReview Boeing funded OSU chamber studyAssess needs for new workChamber studies (restricted to rel. healthy) Monitoring passengers

Cabin pressure project

Pressure tangible outcomesNear term — physician guidance

Pretreatment for susceptible individualsSuitable first responseFewer disruptive health emergencies

Longer-term — design dataOSU study probably already influenced choice of 787’s cabin altitudeNew post-787 ECS designs can be made compatible with aging population

DriversInfrequent “smoke in the cabin” incidentsPossibility of bleed air contamination Health concerns expressed by crews

TasksIncidents (joint effort with OHRCA)

On-board sampling during “incidents”Fight attendant cohort studyAir quality incident reporting system

Sampling of aircraft filters

“Incidents” projects

“Incidents” tangible outcomesObjective data

Know what if anything ishappening, how often andhow significant?Enables informed discussion

Path to a fix (if there is a problem)Distinguish causes of perceived incidents e.g.bleed air issues vs. smoldering wiringCould localize to specific classes of equipment/operations enabling affordable fix

DriversNeeded for most ACER projectsASHRAE Phase I study was small-scale

TasksPassenger surveysAir quality samplingMicrobial sampling

In-flight measurements

Key enabling activity

Dec. # flights

Driver – where have all the(de)contaminants gone?

Correct location of sensorsEfficacious decontaminationImpact of air quality incidents, pesticides etc., etc.

TasksDevelop air distribution and transport models with predictive powerExperimental verification

Contaminant transport

Contaminantsource location

Key enabling activity for other projectsForensic/epidemiological toolsDesign tools for future aircraft

Contam. tran. outcomes

Infectious disease transmissionDrivers

Need to place civil aviation in the broader context of epidemiologyDistinguish between

Transport of infectious casesPassenger to passenger transmissionSurface mediated transmission

TasksIntegrates relevant knowledge from other ACER projectsAerosol studies & modeling

Image by ACER’s Bill Nazaroff

Disease trans. tangible outcomesReplaces conjecture “I got sick when I flew to...” with hard scienceIdentifies any changes needed to future generation ECS or cabinKey public health planning tool

Prioritize aircraft, versus terminal, versus other transportation modes etc.Prioritize response within the cabinMake best use of limitedresources (esp. in epidemic)

SummaryKey issues in passenger & crew health

OzonePesticidesCabin pressureAir quality incidents

Wider issuesDisease transmission

Enabling activitiesIn-flight measurementsContaminant transport

Acknowledgments

FAA Office of Aerospace Med.

The ACER team

ACER industry partners

Collaborators

Students & staff

Although the FAA has sponsored this project, it neither endorses nor rejects the findings of this research. The presentation of this information is in the interest of invoking technical community comment on the results and conclusions of the research.

Questions/Comments Please?

acer-coe.org

William F. GaleAuburn University

Airliner cabinenvironment research

overviewPart 2 – Chem.–bio. response

related topics

Sensors projectDrivers

Response to epidemics Defeat of chem.–bio. terrorismEnables other ACER projects

TasksEvaluation of COTS/GOTS/NM systemsModification for airliner useSensor locationIntegration into the cabin

Defines what’s practicableCuts through the sensor hypeDetermines what works in civil aviationRealistic expectations @ realistic $

Unglamorous, but practicable sensors Simple, low cost sensors in right locationsUse protocols recognize sensor limitations

Sensor backboneSmall, fast, cheap & useful for any sensorPractical to integrateinto cabin

Sensor tangible outcomes

Sensor “bread box”

Supports a suite of sensors

Data processing/comms.

Modular/scaleable

Aircraft-ready

Affordable

ProblemsCosts too muchTakes too longFalse positivesVol./mass/power

Hold at airport for PCR

Trigger sensor initiates sample capture

Normal landing

Drivers – respond toTerrorism

DC anthrax attacksTokyo subway sarin attackChlorine tankersAirliners favorite target

Epidemics/pandemicsSARSinfluenza and AITB, plague etc.

TasksTechnology reviewLab evaluationFull-scale demo.

Decon. project

Ready when next pandemic hitsEvaluated efficacy of COTS hardwareProcess tweaks have huge effect

Enables response to bioterrorDelivery system thatworks for civil aviationKnock down agentswithout risk to aircraft

Overcome barriers to airline useSafety issuesCost and logistics

Decon. tangible outcomes

Thermal decon. systemAeroClave COTS technology

Aircraft hookup

Antiviral only

T control/uniformity

RH control capability

Efficacy

(Long-term effects?)

Evaluation – thermal decon.

Limited scope for accel. lifing

Efficacy dataInfluenza

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (min)

Frac

tion

Surv

ivin

g

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Num

ber o

f Log

Red

uctio

ns25% Relative Humidty (RH)

50% RH

75% RHDetection limit

Stainless steel substrates, 60 �Cº

Efficacy against BWAs well known, but use very dilute against viruses?

Materials compatibility?

Best method of delivery?

Vaporized hydrogenperoxide (VHP)

Materials/systems compatibility

Aircraft alloys, non-metallic materials & avionics

Single aisle demonstrationEnvironmental conditioning (AeroClave)VHP injection (STERIS)

Decon. projectWide-body demo

SummaryChem.–bio. sensors

COTS/GOTS/NM evaluationoptimization and support systemslimited capabilities with current generation

Whole airliner decontaminationefficacymaterials and systems compatibilityoptimal delivery and full-scale demospromising, but hurdles remain

Acknowledgments

FAA Office of Aerospace Med.

The ACER team

ACER industry partners

CollaboratorsStudents & staff

Although the FAA has sponsored this project, it neither endorses nor rejects the findings of this research. The presentation of this information is in the interest of invoking technical community comment on the results and conclusions of the research.

Questions/Comments Please?

acer-coe.org