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.