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.
Mail this postPopularity: 3% [?]
Technorati Tags: air purifier review, air purifiers, ionic air purifier review, ionic air purifiers, scientific peer review
