I’m not recommending it (haven’t done a cost-benefit analysis) but Anna was considering flying less because of the fume risk, and bringing a gas mask in the carry-on seems less burdensome than refraining from flying.
I had the same thought, but hesitated to recommend it because I’ve worn a gas mask before on flights (when visiting my immunocompromised Mom), and many people around me seemed scared by it.
By my lights, half-face respirators look much less scary than full gas masks for some reason, but they generally have a different type of filter connection (“bayonet”) than the NATO-standard 40mm connection for gas cartridges. It looks like there are adapters, though, so perhaps one could make a less scary version this way? (E.g. to use a mask like this with filters like these).
You don’t need to wear the mask at all times, for example you can buy an air quality monitor, and wear the mask only when the sensors detect unsafe levels of contaminants (in which case your fellow passengers ought to be scared).
I live next to a liberally-polluting oil refinery so have looked into this a decent amount, and unfortunately there do not exist reasonably priced portable sensors for many (I’d guess the large majority) of toxic gasses. I haven’t looked into airplane fumes in particular, but the paper described in the WSJ article lists ~130 gasses of concern, and I expect detecting most such things at relevant thresholds would require large infrared spectroscopy installations or similar.
(I’d also guess that in most cases we don’t actually know the relevant thresholds of concern, beyond those which cause extremely obvious/severe acute effects; for gasses I’ve researched, the literature on sub-lethal toxicity is depressingly scant, I think partly because many gasses are hard/expensive to measure, and also because you can’t easily run ethical RCTs on their effects.
It’s quite easy to buy a air quality monitor that tells you about CO2 or CO but are there monitors that actually tell you about the 100 different substances that might be a problem on airplanes that you can easy have in your carry-on?
Professional handhelds that sniff broader leak byproducts (VOCs via PID sensors): ~$1,000–$5,700+. [...] A quick reality check: no single handheld will confirm every toxin the WSJ story worries about. CO meters only see carbon monoxide; PID‑based VOC meters are broad‑spectrum (good for “something’s leaking” signals) but not compound‑specific, so they won’t tell you which organophosphate or oil additive is present. Speciation usually needs lab analysis (e.g., GC/MS) or installed systems.
a monitor that detects VOCs generically maybe? Though possibly there cannot be generic VOC detector chemicals in the first place and I fell for marketing claims
I’m not recommending it (haven’t done a cost-benefit analysis) but Anna was considering flying less because of the fume risk, and bringing a gas mask in the carry-on seems less burdensome than refraining from flying.
I had the same thought, but hesitated to recommend it because I’ve worn a gas mask before on flights (when visiting my immunocompromised Mom), and many people around me seemed scared by it.
By my lights, half-face respirators look much less scary than full gas masks for some reason, but they generally have a different type of filter connection (“bayonet”) than the NATO-standard 40mm connection for gas cartridges. It looks like there are adapters, though, so perhaps one could make a less scary version this way? (E.g. to use a mask like this with filters like these).
I’d pay at least $100 to someone who could tell me where to buy a mask like that, or how to easily assemble the pieces.
I’d guess the items linked in the previous comment will suffice? Just buy one mask, two adapters and two filters and screw them together.
You don’t need to wear the mask at all times, for example you can buy an air quality monitor, and wear the mask only when the sensors detect unsafe levels of contaminants (in which case your fellow passengers ought to be scared).
I live next to a liberally-polluting oil refinery so have looked into this a decent amount, and unfortunately there do not exist reasonably priced portable sensors for many (I’d guess the large majority) of toxic gasses. I haven’t looked into airplane fumes in particular, but the paper described in the WSJ article lists ~130 gasses of concern, and I expect detecting most such things at relevant thresholds would require large infrared spectroscopy installations or similar.
(I’d also guess that in most cases we don’t actually know the relevant thresholds of concern, beyond those which cause extremely obvious/severe acute effects; for gasses I’ve researched, the literature on sub-lethal toxicity is depressingly scant, I think partly because many gasses are hard/expensive to measure, and also because you can’t easily run ethical RCTs on their effects.
It’s quite easy to buy a air quality monitor that tells you about CO2 or CO but are there monitors that actually tell you about the 100 different substances that might be a problem on airplanes that you can easy have in your carry-on?
Edit: I asked ChatGPT 5-pro and it suggests:
a monitor that detects VOCs generically maybe? Though possibly there cannot be generic VOC detector chemicals in the first place and I fell for marketing claims