Airplane Air Not So Germy

A study of the air on planes found that most of the microbes weren't too disgusting, but were merely the usual ones found on the skin or in dust. Karen Hopkin reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

If you’re a fan of bad movies, and even if you’re not, you might remember the summer thriller Snakes on a Plane. In it, gangsters attempt to take down a plane by stuffing the cargo hold with angry venomous snakes. The movie probably didn’t make you fear getting bitten by a cobra on your next cross-country flight. But I’ll bet there is a critter you don’t want to encounter in coach. A creature so insidious that even shoving Neosporin up your nose won’t save you. I’m talking about germs.
 
Admit it. When that guy four rows ahead of you starts hacking, you can almost see the viruses wafting your way. But a study published in the March issue of the Annals of Industrial Hygiene suggests that you needn’t fear the microbes on your next flight. The scientists took air samples from a dozen planes at various times during flight. They found bacteria were most plentiful during boarding and deplaning. But the bugs they detected were mostly those found on the skin or in dust or outdoor air, probably stirred up by people moving around, getting in and out of their seats. So relax, take off your surgical mask and enjoy the in-flight movie. Unless, of course, it’s Snakes on a Plane.

—Karen Hopkin


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe