This entry was posted on Monday, August 31st, 2009 at 9:01 am and is filed under environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Air Purifier Reviews – 5 Key Factors Model
Previously we had 4 key factors but now it is the 5 Key Factors Model. With reference to our most recent post, we have now included Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.
Our research indicates that the lack of scientific peer reviews is a major stumbling block to all the interested parties in accepting the claims of air purifier manufacturers, no matter how reputable the latter may be. These interested parties include the scientific community such as indoor air quality specialists, environmentalists (both academics and activists), government agencies like the US EPA and NIOSH, the medical community who manage allergy afflictions etc.
Many will be cheered that this problem is limited to the ionic air purifier industry. But that is quite misguided. Identical problems affects all the other technologies in the air purification industry, including the venerated HEPA and the newer photo-catalytic oxidation methodologies.
It is almost as if, as an intrinsic part of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is almost like the holy grail of the air purifier industry. The first fortunate manufacturer past the post will almost certainly assume the same fabled supremacy in the multimillion dollar industry.
Given the extreme (no exaggeration here!) importance of a scientific peer review, the biggest mystery is why no one has deemed it worth their while to endeavor a single review. Logically, no air purifier manufacturer has commissioned one since that would void the independence element that is central to a scientific peer review.
What is surprising is why no scientist or researcher, specifically those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most knowledgeable to do an air purifier review, considers it worth their effort to do. Air purification technology can be said to be harbingers of nanotechnology. Yet it seems so antiquated that no one deems it worth their while to spend time on a 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 professional 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 fantasy and nothing else? One other possibility is that scientists view proving air purification technology as chasing the Holy Grail - a futile pursuit for those with limitless resources? In fact, we have trouble even finding a single comprehensive objective air purifier review.
Stimulating and thought-provoking questions these are, driving us to intense scrutiny with our 5-Key Factors Model. Our despatch, to several air purifier manufacturers, of a detailed survey based on our model met with muted response. But this only encourages us to delve deeper.
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 elucidated in detail in distinct Ezine articles which you can read via the widget on our blog. Thousands of our readers have also published our Ezine write-ups on their own blogs for their own subscriber base. If you have not read or published the full set of 5, you are welcomed to.
Also, please register at our blog as well as we are about to launch our first product review utilising the Air Purifier Review - 5 Key Factors Model.
Leave a Reply
