Dream Buster - I didn't say "imaginary test", but said "imaginary scenario". The concept was - if you don't know the real cause, and you do not get an infinite number of tries to solve the problem, then go for a broadly inclusive testing method that can identify any of a large number of pollutants in the same process. Then proceed on the facts as observed. This is likely more a persuasive method, when viewed by outsiders, and has greater success of leading to an actual result.
I don't disagree with your observations re oil fumes, since you are there and I am not ( Been there, had that experience, also. ) The necessity, to prompt corrective action, is to create some evidence that will be plausible to outsiders That's my thrust.
Actually, U. Warwick might be a good place to talk it around. A niece of mine studied there; she fared well. You might want to shop it around the med school research dept:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/
SMOKIE - sounds like you have access to some useful monitoring resources and data. Next step is to get the sample source materials into a "chain of evidence" sequence, with known handling procedures and custody by persons between sample location and test lab, so as to make the results credible to authorities, etc.
There's nothing to say we cannot have a dozen different sets of people working this problem in a dozen different places. Objective test results from a distributed group of independent sources are very hard to ignore.