Super Baby Album

Posts Tagged ‘ionic air purifier’

it might seem that the ionic air purifier is a complicated gimmick, it is not really like that. And it is, in fact, so easy. When the air goes through the ionic air purifier the pollution molecules which float round in the air are electrically loaded. Inside the machine, metal plates, that are charged oppositely, preserve the polluted substances while they float by.

The only maintenance item in the machine are stainless steel plates, which may be easily pulled out of the machine and wiped clean. And that is the entire procedure! Pull them out, wipe them off, and take them back in. Your purifier will continue filtering as if it was brand new. And, it just has to be done once each few weeks. You’ll be surprised at the amount of black gunk that is stuck to those plates. Furthermore, not having a ionic air purifier this black gunk would’ve ended up in you or your family member’s lungs.

Why does it happen the air stream that produces the pollutants floats by the ionic air purifier? If we know that there is no fan how did the air actually move? Every particle and molecule of air close to the intake of the ionic air purifier is charged. The air molecules and particles near the plates are pulled forward since the stainless steel plates are as well loaded reversely. The result of the air flowing directly to the cleaning plates is known as the ionic breeze, keeping the air flow while the ionic air purifier is plugged in.

The nasties like smoke, chemicals, odors, pollen and even animal dander are stuck to the cleaning plates being left there as long as somebody wipes them off, once in every two weeks. The lighter molecules, like the untainted air, go through the cleaning plates and get back into the room. Finally, you obtain pure, clean and unpolluted air, that will make your breathing easier.

In order to appreciate the ionic air purifier you should really try it. You’ll be content with a twist without fan producing a detectable breeze, and you will realize how much unhealthy substances you breathe. For this reason, great number of merchants will provide you one to try out for free for a limited time, and if you don’t like it, they will give your money back.

It seems the in thing to criticise the ionic air purifier industry. “Absence of scientific peer reviews” has been a frequent criticism posted on influenza, air quality and indoor pollution blogs.

Mr. John Moore, a researcher at Cornell University and firm believer of the peer review system, made some surprising revelations.

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.

The gold standard, no less, demands critics of the ionic air purifier. So do the powers to be as well. How do we know? 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.

It is not a question of funding. It is not outright rejection by the governing bodies. Why then isn’t there any scientific peer review of the ionic air purifier after all these years? It would be great to hear from an insider of the ionic air purifier industry.

In our view, advancements in ionic air purifier technologies should encourage manufacturers to tap on available official funding. It may take just one high profile and successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? Ideally, it 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?

In the meantime, users searching for the ideal ionic air purifier can look to 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 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.

Rarely does the ionic air purifier industry escape criticism. “No scientific peer review” has been a frequent barb posted on influenza, air quality and indoor pollution blogs.

Mr. John Moore, a researcher at Cornell University and firm believer of the peer review system, made some surprising revelations.

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 not regard every scientific peer review as the “gold standard” as “even reviewed literature can be cherry-picked to support any argument.” It is instructive 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 seem to be wasting funds chasing up the wrong road.

Critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard. So do the authorities as well. 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.

It is definitely not a question of funding. It is not outright rejection by the governing bodies. Why then isn’t there any scientific peer review of the ionic air purifier after all these decades? It would be great 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 should take just one successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? Ideally, it should 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 – What Can Users Do Until Scientific Reviews Abound?

Meanwhile, users looking for the ideal ionic air purifier can look to 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 include 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.

It seems the in thing to criticise the ionic air purifier industry. “No scientific peer review exists” has been a frequent criticism posted on influenza, air quality and indoor pollution blogs.

Mr. John Moore, a researcher at Cornell University and firm believer of the peer review system, made some surprising revelations.

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 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 a boon to all industries, including the ionic air purifier industry, that have fallen short on the burden of proof.

Critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard. So do the governing bodies. How do we know that? We simply 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 aren’t there any scientific peer reviews of the ionic air purifier after all these years? If only we could hear from an insider of the ionic air purifier industry.

In our view, advancements in ionic air purifier technologies should encourage manufacturers to tap on available official funding. It may take just one successful scientific peer review to grab the lead? The ideal state would be Mr. Moore’s “mounting consensus” of peer reviews in authenticating the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of the ionic air purifier.

Ionic Air Purifier – Until Scientific Reviews Abound, What Can We Do?

In the meantime, users searching for the ideal ionic air purifier can look to 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.

It seems the in thing to criticise the ionic air purifier industry. “No scientific peer review exists” has been a frequent criticism posted on flu, indoor air quality and pollution blogs.

Mr. John Moore, a researcher at Cornell University and firm believer of the peer review system, made some surprising revelations.

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 not regard 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. So do the powers to be as well. How do we know? We simply 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. It is not rejection, overt or otherwise, by the governing bodies. Why aren’t there any scientific peer reviews of the ionic air purifier after all these years? It would be great to hear from someone in the ionic air purifier industry.

In our view, advancements in ionic air purifier technologies should encourage manufacturers to tap on available official funding. It may take just one high profile and successful scientific peer review to grab the headlines? The ideal situation would 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 – What Can Users Do Until Scientific Reviews Abound?

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 include the 2 safety aspects in our model.

NIOSH states categorically: “…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.

It seems the in thing to criticise the ionic air purifier industry. “No scientific peer review exists” has been a frequent criticism posted on flu, indoor air quality and 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 not regard 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 seem to be wasting funds chasing up the wrong road.

Critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard, nothing less. So do the authorities as well. How did we discover that? 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.

Funding shortage is definitely not the problem. It is not outright rejection by the governing bodies. Why aren’t there any scientific peer reviews of the ionic air purifier after all these years? It would be great 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 may take just one successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? Of course, the ideal should be Mr. Moore’s “mounting consensus” of peer reviews in authenticating the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of the ionic air purifier.

Ionic Air Purifier – Without Scientific Reviews, Do We Just Ignore It?

Meanwhile, users looking for the ideal ionic air purifier can look to 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.

NIOSH states categorically: “…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.

Criticism of the ionic air purifier industry is fashionable. “No scientific peer review exists” has been a frequent barb posted on influenza, air quality and indoor pollution blogs.

Mr. John Moore, a researcher at Cornell University and firm believer of the peer review system, made some surprising revelations.

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”.

The public, warns Mr. Moore, must not regard every scientific peer review as the “gold standard” as “even reviewed literature can be cherry-picked to support any argument.” It is instructive 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 seem to be wasting funds chasing up the wrong road.

Critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard, nothing less. So do the governing bodies. How did we find that out? 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.

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 years? If only we could hear from an insider of the ionic air purifier industry.

It is our view that with the advancements in ionic air purifier technologies, manufacturers should tap on available official funding. It may take just one successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? The ideal situation would be Mr. Moore’s “mounting consensus” of peer reviews in validating the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of the ionic air purifier.

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

Meanwhile, users looking for the ideal ionic air purifier can look to 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 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.

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 are known variously by names like negative ions, bipolar ions, plasmacluster ions and so on. Their prime 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 delicate 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.

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.

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.

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, intriguing and exciting field of ionic air purifier technologies.

User safety must be 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.These reactive agents are known variously by names like negative ions, bipolar ions, plasmacluster ions and so on. Their main 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 is lacking is information on whether these same potent reactive agents also cause harm to human tissues, particularly the fragile and sensitive tissues that line our breathing passages from the windpipe 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 well established that current ionic air purifier technology inadvertently results in the production of by-products that may, in sufficient concentrations, 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.

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

(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.

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 main role is to eliminate airborne contaminants in our indoor living environment. There is much research on the efficacy of these reactive agents in eliminating these airborne contaminants. What is lacking is information on whether these same potent reactive agents also cause harm to human tissues, particularly the fragile and sensitive tissues that line our breathing passages from the windpipe 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. 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, intriguing and exciting field of ionic air purifier technologies.