Posts Tagged ‘ionic air purifiers’
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.
Ionic Air Purifier – Scientific Peer Reviews or No Deal?
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.
Ionic Air Purifier – Scientific Peer Reviews, The Gold Standard
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.
Ionic Air Purifier – Scientific Peer Reviews, The Gold Standard
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.
Ionic Air Purifier – Scientific Peer Reviews, The Gold Standard
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.
Ionic Air Purifier – Scientific Peer Reviews or No Deal?
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.
Ionic Air Purifier – Scientific Peer Reviews, Who Will Be The First?
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.
Ionic Air Purifiers – Safety First
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
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.
Ionic Air Purifiers – Safety First
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
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.
Ionic Air Purifiers – Safety Takes Priority
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
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.