Search Results

After several decades of human spaceflight, the community of space-faring nations has accumulated a diverse and sometimes harrowing history of toxicological events that have plagued human space endeavors almost from the very beginning. Some lessons have been learned in ground-based test beds and others were discovered the hard way - when human lives were at stake in space. From such lessons one can build a risk-management framework for toxicological events to minimize the probability of a harmful exposure, while recognizing that we cannot predict all possible events. Space toxicologists have learned that relatively harmless compounds can be converted by air revitalization systems into compounds that cause serious harm to the crew.

Lunar dust exposures occurred during the Apollo missions while the crew was in the lunar module on the moon's surface and especially when micro-gravity conditions were attained during rendezvous in lunar orbit. Crews reported that the dust was irritating to the eyes, and in some cases, respiratory symptoms were elicited. NASA's current vision for lunar exploration includes stays of 6 months on the lunar surface hence the health effects of periodic exposure to lunar dust in the habitat need to be assessed. NASA is performing this assessment with a series of in vitro and in vivo tests with authentic lunar dust. Our approach is to “calibrate” the intrinsic toxicity of lunar dust by comparison to a relatively low toxicity dust (TiO2) and a highly toxic dust (quartz) using intrapharyngeal instillation of the dusts to mice. A battery of indices of toxicity is assessed at various time points after the instillations.

Space-faring crews must have safe breathing air throughout their missions to ensure adequate performance and good health. Toxicological assessment of air quality depends on the standards that define acceptable air quality, measurements of pollutant levels during the flight, and reports from the crew on their in-flight perceptions of air quality. Air samples returned from ISS on flights 8A, UF2, 9A, and 11A were analyzed for trace pollutants. On average, the air during this period of operations was safe for human respiration. However, about 3 hours into the regeneration of 2 Metox canisters in the U.S. airlock on 20 February 2002 the crew reported an intolerable odor that caused them to stop the regeneration, take refuge in the Russian segment, and scrub air in the U.S. segment for 30 hours. Analytical data from grab samples taken during the incident showed that the pollutants released were characteristic of nominal air pollutants, but were present in much higher concentrations.

There are many sources of air pollution that can threaten air quality during space missions. The International Space Station (ISS) is an extremely complex platform that depends on a multi-tiered strategy to control the risk of excessive air pollution. During the seven missions surveyed by this report, the ISS atmosphere was in a safe, steady-state condition; however, there were minor loads added as new modules were attached. There was a series of leaks of octafluoropropane, which is not directly toxic to humans, but did cause changes in air purification operations that disrupted the steady state condition. In addition, off-nominal regeneration of metal oxide canisters used during extravehicular activity caused a serious pollution incident.

Space-faring crews must have safe breathing air throughout their missions to ensure adequate performance and good health. Toxicological assessment of air quality depends on applicable air-quality standards, measurements of pollutant concentrations, and crew reports of air quality. Samples of air were obtained during ingress and egress of the Zarya and Unity modules on missions 2A and 2A.1. The results from 2A suggest that trace pollutants were at safe levels and that there was good air exchange between the modules. Results from the 2A.1 flight also showed that trace pollutants were at acceptable concentrations; however, there was evidence of inadequate mixing between the modules during the hatch-open operations. Furthermore, the 2A.1 crew reported after the flight that the air quality seemed to cause symptoms during their operations in Zarya, particularly when more than one crewmember was working inside open panels for some time.