Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model
In the first place it was 4 key factors, now it’s the 5 Key Factors Model. Further to our most recent post, we have now added Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.
The shortfall of scientific peer reviews is a colossal stumbling block to all the interested parties in assenting with the claims of air purifier manufacturers, regardless of how illustrious the latter may be. A whole [array of concerned parties]|throng of concerned parties who] would love to have the issue resolved once and for all. These parties include the scientific community i.e. indoor air quality scientists, environmentalists, government agencies like the US EPA, NIOSH or Canada Health, and many in the medical community who manage allergies, asthma and other respiratory problems .
Commonly, it is assumed that this impediment is confined to the ionic air purifier industry. It cuts across all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the respected HEPA or the new (relatively speaking) photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.
It almost seems that, as a basic part of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is almost like the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Getting it first may well bestow upon that fortunate manufacturer undisputed supremacy in the multimillion dollar industry.
In view of the supreme (no hype here!) importance of a scientific peer review, the biggest mystery is why no one has deemed it worthwhile to embark upon a single review. Luckily, no manufacturer has been thoughtless enough to commission a scientific peer review for that would strike at its very usefulness, a truly independent assessment.
What is unclear is why no scientist or researcher, notably those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most capable to write an air purifier review, considers it worth their while 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 proficient scientists with the knowledge, expertise and resources to implement a truly scientific peer review. As a matter of fact, we know that funding is available from the US NIOSH. They are ready to fund anyone who can deliver a high caliber scientific peer review.
Interestingly, no researcher or scientist seems willing to take on a scientific peer review. This begs the million dollar question. Is the air purification industry simply science fiction and nothing else? Or do scientists view it a futile task akin to seeking the Holy Grail – truth beyond reach? Undeniably, we have trouble even finding one comprehensive autonomous air purifier review.
Stimulating and thought-provoking questions these are, driving us to intense scrutiny with our 5-Key Factors Model. The reticence of manufacturers to complete our survey questions based on the said model piques us to delve deeper, 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 elaborated at length in separate Ezine articles which you can access via the widget on our blog. Many thousands of our readers have also published our Ezine write-ups for their own subscriber base. If you have not read or published the full set of 5 factors, you are welcomed to do so.
Also, do register at our blog as well as we plan to publish our maiden product review utilising the Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model.
