Ionic Air Purifier – Scientific Peer Reviews or No Deal?

Friday, July 3rd, 2009    Subscribe To Our Feed

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

Mr. J ohn Moore, a researcher at Cornell University (New York), may surprise adherents 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”.

The general 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 are constantly lambasted by critics.

Critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard, nothing less. So do the powers to be as well. How do we know that? 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: 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 authorities. Why aren’t there any scientific peer reviews of the ionic air purifier after all these decades? 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 high profile and successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? The ideal state 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 – Without Scientific Reviews, Do We Just Ignore 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.

In the words of NIOSH: “…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.

Comments are closed.