Previously we had 4 key factors but now it is the 5 Key Factors Model. Further to our preceding post, we have now included Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.

The paucity of scientific peer reviews is a towering stumbling stone to all the interested parties in accepting the assertions of air purifier manufacturers, no matter how celebrated the latter may be. Concerned parties include the scientific community such as indoor air quality specialists, environmentalists (both academics and activists), government agencies like the US EPA and NIOSH, the medical community who oversee allergy afflictions etc.

It is a typical conjecture that only the ionic air purifier industry has this issue. Unfortunately, that is definitely misconstrued. Comparable issues perturbs all the other technologies in the air purification industry, including the venerable HEPA and the newer photo-catalytic oxidation methodologies.

It almost seems that, as a necessary part of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is analogous to the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Any fortuitous manufacturer who gets it first will garner the same mythical control in the multimillion dollar industry.

Taking into account the inordinate (no hype here!) importance of a scientific peer review, the biggest mystery is why no one has deemed it worth their time to embark upon a single review. It is understandable that no air purifier manufacturer has inducted one since that would nullify the independence element that is central to a scientific peer review.

What is inexplicable is why no scientist or researcher, notably those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most competent to accomplish an air purifier review, considers it worth their energies to do. As end users of air purifiers, we want to know, we need to know. We don’t just want to hear from the manufacturers. We want to hear from truly independent and competent scientists with the knowledge, expertise and resources to accomplish a truly scientific peer review. Funding is also not an issue. It is a fact that the US EPA had previously funded such an undertaking for HEPA technology which unfortunately produced vague findings. The US NIOSH has also pointed out that it will fund a effectively drafted, scientific peer review.

Why is there no scientist or researcher willing to commence an objective scientific peer review? It begs the million dollar question - is the air purification industry one big hype? One other possibility is that scientists view proving air purification technology as chasing the Holy Grail - a futile pursuit for those with limitless resources? Incredibly, we have trouble even finding a single comprehensive independent air purifier review.

Stimulating and thought-provoking questions these are, driving us to intense scrutiny with our 5-Key Factors Model. The aversion of manufacturers to complete our survey questions based on the said model piques us to want to know more, so stay tuned to our efforts.

To recap, the Air Purifier Review - 5 Key Factors Model is as detailed:

(1) Safety – in relation to the reactive agent

(2) Safety – in relation to unintended by-products

(3) Efficacy – the reactive agents work in the lab

(4) Efficiency – the reactive agents work in the real world

(5) Scientific Peer Review.

Each factor of our air purifier review model has been described at length in separate Ezine articles which you can gain access to via the widget on our blog. Several thousands of our readers have also published our Ezine write-ups on their own blogs for their own subscriber base. If you have not read or published the full set of 5, you are welcomed to.

Also, do register at our blog as well as we will shortly publish our first product review based on the Air Purifier Review - 5 Key Factors Model.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Technorati Tags: air purifier review, air purifiers, ionic air purifier review, ionic air purifiers, scientific peer review

Criticism of the ionic air purifier industry is fashionable. “Absence of scientific peer reviews” has been a frequent criticism posted on influenza, air quality and indoor pollution blogs.

Mr. John Moore, an “insider” of the peer review system, may surprise believers of the peer review system.

He says:

• “a lust for profit has led to too many journals,…all too easy to find…poor-quality work”

• “not everything in the peer-reviewed literature is correct. Indeed, some of it is downright bad science”

• “the peer review system…it’s the least-bad system that can be devised”.

Members of the public, warns Mr. Moore, must never mistake every scientific peer review as the “gold standard” as “even reviewed literature can be cherry-picked to support any argument.” It is enlightening that “professional scientists…know that scientific truth evolves on the basis of a mounting consensus, not through an isolated paper that adopts a maverick position, even if it has been peer-reviewed.”

These nuggets of wisdom from an “insider” like Mr. Moore is of great value to all industries, including the ionic air purifier industry, that are constantly lambasted by critics.

Critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard, nothing less. So do the overseeing bodies. How did we find that out? We just asked. The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) responded thus:

“NIOSH is not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of ion generators/ionic air purifiers against viruses. NIOSH does not have any studies planned to evaluate these devices nor do we have a policy on their use.”

But it was encouraging that the NIOSH has not pronounced final judgment as they also said:

“NIOSH provides support for investigator initiated research. Should someone want to conduct such studies they may apply for funding by mechanisms available and described under “Funding Opportunities” at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/oep/. Proposals are funded annually based on availability of funds, relevance of the proposed work to the NIOSH mission, and the quality of the science proposed.”

At our Ezine article (accessible via The Ionic Air Purifier Blog Ezine widget), we have reproduced the NIOSH’s exacting parameters of a scientific peer review.

Shortage of funding is definitely not the issue. Neither is it outright rejection by the authorities. Why then isn’t there any scientific peer review of the ionic air purifier after all these decades? We would sure love to hear from someone in the ionic air purifier industry.

In our view, with the advancements in ionic air purifier technologies, manufacturers see the advantages of tapping on the prestige of official funding. It may take just one successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? Of course, the ideal should be Mr. Moore’s “mounting consensus” in the scientific community in attesting to the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of the ionic air purifier.

Ionic Air Purifier – Without Scientific Reviews, Do We Just Give Up On It?

For the time being, users hunting for the ideal ionic air purifier can look to our Ionic Air Purifier Review – 4 Key Factors Model.

It is encouraging that we now know that a scientific peer review to be acceptable to any authority, it must cover the 2 safety aspects in our 4 Key Factors Model.

NIOSH states very clearly: “…a scientifically valid study would need to be designed to test whether ion generators are effective in killing viruses to the extent that a hazard no longer remains, and that such technology does not by itself generate new hazards of its own, e.g., ozone or oxidized by-products. The design of such a study would be challenging.”

Sign up at the Ionic Air Purifier Blog to follow our ongoing research.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Technorati Tags: air purifier, air purifiers, ionic air purifier, ionic air purifiers, scientific peer review

User safety tops all criteria in the selection of an ionic air purifier for use in the home, office, factory or school.

Existing ionic air purifier technology, regardless of whether they originate in North America, Europe, Japan or China produce a primary beneficial reactive agent. These reactive agents may be negative ions, bipolar ions, plasmacluster ions and so on. Their main role is to eliminate airborne contaminants in our indoor living environment. Much has been published on the efficacy of these reactive agents in eliminating contaminants. What we do not know is whether these same potent reactive agents also cause harm to fragile human tissues such as those that line our breathing passages from the trachea to the lungs.

Whether by design or otherwise, there is also an information void about whether there are other by-products and if these are harmful to fragile human tissues as well. In the industry, however, it is known that current ionic air purifier technology inadvertently results in the production of by-products. In sufficient quantities, these may prove harmful to human tissue. One of the main by-products which attracts much attention is ozone, which in high concentrations is known to be harmful to human tissues.

Accordingly, for the ionic air purifier user, the issue of safety has to be addressed from these two perspectives:

(1) Potential harm from the beneficial reactive agents, and

(2) Potential harm from the unintended by-products.

We have done intensive web research on these two important perspectives. The reports are featured on Ezinearticles.com.

Don’t miss these 2 in-depth Ezine articles. To read, click on the Ezine Author Badge on The Ionic Air Purifier Blog.

Ezinearticles.com, within their terms and conditions, allows publishers to freely reproduce these two articles. So help yourself, publish the two articles on your websites as a complete set, via these links:

(1) Beneficial reactive agents

(2) Unintended by-products

In addition, keep updated with our progress as we research other aspects of the very broad and constantly changing field of ionic air purifier technologies.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Technorati Tags: air purifier, air purifiers, ezinearticles.com, ionic air purifier, ionic air purifier reviews, ionic air purifiers, ozone, safety

Safety assumes top priority in the selection of an ionic air purifier for use in the home, office, factory or school.

Existing ionic air purifier technology, regardless of whether they originate in North America, Europe, Japan or China produce a primary beneficial reactive agent.Depending on the specific technology, these reactive agents may be called negative ions, bipolar ions, plasmacluster ions and so on. Their main role is to eliminate airborne contaminants in our indoor living environment. Much has been written on the efficacy of these reactive agents in destroying contaminants. What we do not know is whether these same potent reactive agents also cause harm to fragile human tissues such as those that line our breathing passages from the trachea to the lungs.    

There is also an information vacuum about whether there are other by-products and if these are harmful to human tissues as well. In the industry, however, it is known that current ionic air purifier technology inadvertently results in the production of by-products. In sufficient quantities, these may prove harmful to human tissue. Ozone is one of the potentially toxic by-products. In high concentrations, ozone has been proven to damage human tissues.

In the light of the above, the issue of safety for the user of an ionic air purifier has to be addressed from these two perspectives:

(1) Potential harm from the beneficial reactive agents, and

(2) Potential harm from the unintended by-products.

Though not exhaustive, our intensive research on these two perspectives have been condensed into two detailed write-ups that have been featured on Ezinearticles.com.

Don’t miss these 2 in-depth Ezine articles. To read, click on the Ezine Author Badge on The Ionic Air Purifier Blog.

Subject to their terms and conditions, Ezinearticles.com allows publishers to freely reproduce these two articles. So help yourself, publish the two articles on your websites as a complete set, via these links:

(1) Beneficial reactive agents

(2) Unintended by-products

In addition, keep updated with our progress as we research other aspects of the very broad and constantly changing field of ionic air purifier technologies.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Technorati Tags: air purifier, air purifiers, ezinearticles.com, ionic air purifier, ionic air purifier reviews, ionic air purifiers, ozone, safety