Air Purifiers Review – 5 Key Factors Model

Friday, September 4th, 2009    Subscribe To Our Feed

We began with 4 factors but have now amended it to the 5 key Factors Model. With reference to our last post, we have now included Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.

The shortage of scientific peer reviews is a towering obstacle to all the interested parties in approving the assertions of air purifier manufacturers, regardless of how reputable the latter may be. What interested parties? 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 oversee allergies, asthma and other respiratory situations .

Typically, it is assumed that this issue is limited to the ionic air purifier industry. It cuts across all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the revered HEPA or the new (relatively speaking) photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.

It is almost as if, as an intrinsic requisite of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is akin to the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Whoever is fortunate enough to get it first will amass the same fabled power of undisputed supremacy in the multimillion dollar business.

In view of the inordinate (no hype here!) value of a scientific peer review, it is bewildering that no one has deemed it worth their effort to undertake a single review. Rationally, no air purifier manufacturer has commissioned one since that would void the independence element that is the essence of a scientific peer review.

What is puzzling is why no scientist or researcher, especially those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most competent to write an air purifier review, considers it worth their while to do. Being the first to do a recognised scientific peer review in a multimillion industry must inevitably put one in the limelight and open doors for funding of further well-founded and constructive research. Lack of initial funding is also not an issue. We know for a fact that the US NIOSH will fund a expertly drawn up scientific peer review.

Why is there no scientist or researcher willing to commence an autonomous scientific peer review? It begs the million dollar question - is the air purification industry one big hype? One other possibility is that scientists view proving air purification technology as chasing the Holy Grail - a futile pursuit for those with limitless resources? Undeniably, we have trouble even finding one comprehensive objective air purifier review.

These very mystifying questions drive us to greater enquiry 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 follows:

(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 explained fully in separate Ezine articles which you can gain access to via the widget on our blog. Several 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 complete set of 5, you are welcomed to.

Also, do register at our blog too as we will shortly publish our maiden product review utilising the Air Purifier Review - 5 Key Factors Model.

Comments are closed.