July 6, 2009
It seems the in thing to criticise the ionic air purifier industry. “No scientific peer review” has been a frequent barb posted on influenza, air quality and indoor pollution blogs.
Mr. John Moore, a trained researcher at Cornell University, New York, may yet surprise these supporters 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”.
Lay persons, warns Mr. Moore, must never over-rate 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 governing bodies. How do we know? We just wrote to them. 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.
Funding shortage is definitely not the problem. 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.
It is our view that with the advancements in ionic air purifier technologies, manufacturers should tap on the prestige of official funding. It should take just one successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? The ideal state would be Mr. Moore’s “mounting consensus” in the scientific community in validating the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of the ionic air purifier.
Ionic Air Purifier – Until Scientific Reviews Abound, What Can We Do?
For the time being, users hunting for the ideal ionic air purifier can vote at The Ionic Air Purifier Blog for our Ionic Air Purifier Review – 4 Key Factors Model.
Encouragingly, we now know that a scientific peer review that is acceptable by any authority must cover the 2 safety aspects in our model.
For NIOSH said: “…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.
April 3, 2009
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.Depending on the specific technology, these reactive agents may be called negative ions, bipolar ions, plasmacluster ions and so on. Their prime role is to eliminate airborne contaminants in our indoor living environment. There is much research 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.
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. However, in the industry, it is known that current ionic air purifier technology results in the inadvertent production of by-products. In sufficient concentrations, 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.
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
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.
February 26, 2009
Introduction
Ionic air purifiers hold the promise of clean air, purified of all known harmful contaminants that threaten our health. Naked eyes cannot see these harmful contaminants. The weapons against such are very likely to be invisible to our eyes as well. Intuitively, the logic is appealing. Sadly, google has no quick answer to meet my simple expectation. Instead, controversy abounds. Even though I am tempted to quickly get an ionic air purifier to clean the air I breathe, it is clear that more time and effort is needed. Safety, more than effectiveness, must be given higher weightage in the selection of an ionic air purifier.
The recent China melamine saga that killed infants also is a timely reminder to us that in buying into any technology or any product, all claims by manufacturers and distributors must be screened to the fullest extent that our resources permit. This is even more critical when the key reactive agent is unseen to the human eye. Investigating ionic air purifier technologies falls within this ambit as the reactive agents are invisible ions.
This article is an overview of existing ionic air purifier technology in the marketplace. As laypersons, I believe we have to adopt a back-to-basics approach to try and understand the technologies. The current key trend appears to be the creation of a potent invisible defence shield against airborne molecular contaminants that threaten our well-being. The prime threat being closely monitored by scientists all over the world is the avian flu virus.
Types of Ionic Air Purifier Technologies
Broadly speaking, air purification technologies can be deployed in either passive or active modes. Under passive technology modes, reactive agents are contained in the air purifier whilst impure air is drawn in for cleansing before being pushed back to the environment. Active generally means dispersive processes by which the impure air is penetrated and purified by the reactive agents. Combinations of both passive and active modes are often found in many types of ionic air purifiers.
In the global market today, ionic air purifier technologies include the following categories:
(A) Ion generator - positive and negative ions
(B) Ion generator - negative ions only
(C) Photocatalytic Oxidation (POC)
(D) Electrostatic filter
(E) Combos
Ion Generator - Positive and Negative Ions
This combination of positive and negative ions appears to show the most promise for the future of ionic air purifier technology. They have been named as plasmacluster ions by Sharp Corporation, the Japanese corporate powerhouse that invented them.
Sharp explains that the plasmacluster of positive and negative ions clump to harmful airborne bacteria and viruses. When clumping occurs, hydroxyl is produced. Hydroxyl, also known as nature’s detergent, is a powerful reactive species that destroys airborne particulates by plucking out hydrogen molecules from their organic structure. This chemical reaction generates harmless by-products, the main of which is water.
A differential ion generator is used in this technology, comprising a positive and a negative ion generator which can be powered in alternate cycles to control the type of ions generated.
Advocates of the positive and negative ions combination claim that a balance of both these ion types is to be found in places like waterfalls and pristine forests, i.e. this is the actual state in nature. Adherents of the negative ions technology expound the view that negative ions dominate these natural habitats and that positive ions are harmful. Thus far, I have not found any independent scientific studies to support the opposing claims of the two technologies.
Ion Generator - Negative Ions
The traditional ionic air purifier produces only negative ions. This method seems to dominate market share in the industry but is coming under serious threat from Sharp’s plasmacluster positive and negative ions technology.
It is claimed that nearly all harmful airborne particulates like dust, smoke and bacteria etc have a positive charge. The positive charges are continually attracted to the negative charges of the ions until sheer mass makes them sink to the ground. Vacuuming removes these neutralised impurities and therefore protects us from them. Detractors of negative ion technology believe that the “overweight” particulates on the ground are not destroyed and that the mere act of walking on them re-contaminates the air.
There appears to be several methods of producing negative ions. This has significance as the various methods result in different by-products, some of which are harmful. These methods include:
(1) Water method - this employs what is known as the waterfall or Lenard Effect. Onto an electrically-charged metal plate, water droplets are splashed. The charge splits the water droplets resulting in the production of a large number of negative ions. No harmful by-products result from using the water method to produce ions.
(2) Electron radiation method - this is based on a single negative discharge electrode needle. The simple application of a high voltage pulse to the electrode results in millions of negatively-charged electrons being produced. This method does not result in ozone being generated. This is due to the application of a “smaller” energy pulse.
(3) Corona discharge method - this is based on a dual electrode model, a sharp metal electrode and a flat electrode. A very high voltage is applied between the two electrodes. The movement of electrons between the electrodes ionises the air in that same space. An inherent weakness of this method is the production of harmful by-products like ozone and nitride oxide.
Photocatalytic Oxidation (POC)
This technology is commonly applied in a passive mode. In POC, the powerful reactive agent hydroxyl is also the key to the purifying process.
Germicidal ultraviolet (UV) light is commonly shone on a catalyst (usually titanium oxide) to produce hydroxyl, oxygen and peroxide, all of which are potent oxidising agents that are very effective at destroying the organic structure of micro-organisms and gaseous volatile organic compounds.
Complete and comprehensive action is the pillar of POC technology. Proponents of this technology claim that POC inactivates ALL categories of indoor pollution, including:
(1) airborne particulates i.e. dust, pet dander, plant pollen, sea salts, tobacco smoke, industrial and car pollution, etc
(2) bioaerosols i.e. infectious biological compounds (e.g. pathogenic bacteria and viruses) or non-infectious and non-contagious (e.g. non-pathogenic bacteria, molds, cell debris)
(3) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) i.e. gaseous odours and chemicals - toluene, chloroform, hexane, ethanol, formaldehyde, ethylene etc, all common emissions from everyday products of our modern home.
POC technology has been criticised for relying on hydroxyl which are believed to attack with equal tenacity the organic structures that make up molecular contaminants and our lung tissue, nose membranes and eye cornea.
Electrostatic Filter
This technology appears to have originated in heavy industries which produced abundant pollutants. Typically, an electrostatic filter is made of a porous dielectric material that is positioned between two electrodes. Dielectric materials do not conduct electricity while metallic electrodes are excellent conductors that transmit and receive electricity.
Contaminated air is drawn into the electrostatic puriifer and made to pass over the dielectric material which acts like a sieve. Electrostatic forces between the electrodes causes airborne particulates i.e.dust, smoke contaminants, etc, to stick to the dielectric surface. Purified air is pushed out of the purifier and re-circulated.
Quite often, an ion source is placed before the electrostatic filter to impart an electric charge to the airborne particulates. These impurities, so charged, stick more effectively to the dielectric material.
Criticism of electrostatic filter technology focuses on ozone as a by-product, commonly assumed to be produced in all ionisation processes.
Combo Ionic Air Purifiers
To cater to the various adherents and critics of the diverse technologies, combos incorporate all or some of the above types of technologies. Combos may include:
(1) adsorptive materials such as activated carbon or oxygenated charcoal (known for its extremely porous large surface area) are added to POC technology to enhance the removal of VOCs;
(2) oxidizing catalysts like titanium oxide are coated on various components of all types of air purifiers to enhance VOC elimination;
(3) reducing catalysts such as manganese dioxide are coated near the exit outlets of many air purifiers to reduce reactive species like ozone and nitric oxide which may be harmful;
(4) generating ions by differing methods such as using microwave, UV light, radio frequency waves, and direct current;
(5) tweaking the specifications of any ionic air purifier technology so as to attain the well-known HEPA status without actually using HEPA filters.
Obviously, the process of selecting the most efficient and effective ionic air purifier involves analysing a deluge of information. I have barely skimmed the surface of the safety issues of each technology. I have also not studied in detail the claims of each technology. It is natural to want to quickly want something that promises to improve the air quality in your homes, offices, factories, schools etc. But I urge you to do your homework and check back here for updates as I continue to look for the ideal ionic air purifier.
To easily receive updates on new articles, subscribe to The Ionic Air Purifier Blog today.