Air Purifier Review - Redux

Previously, the Air Purifier Review - 4 Keypurifier review, the scientific peer review is the
Factors Model was introduced. A detailed surveyholy grail of the air purifier industry. Whoever gets
based on that model was sent to several key airit first may well have the same mythical power
purifier manufacturers. Sadly, save for one, noof leadership in the multimillion dollar business.
one else responded. It is puzzling, to say the least,Given the superlative (an understatement)
for them to ignore users of air purifiers. Do theyimportance of a scientific peer review, the biggest
not make them for end users like us? Are wemystery is why no one has deemed it worthwhile
not the most likely to buy an air purifier? Theto produce a single review. It is understandable
muted response is disheartening but we are notthat no air purifier manufacturer has
about to abandon our efforts to build ancommissioned one since that would negate the
information database for all users and potentialindependence factor that is central to a scientific
users of air purifiers to make well-informedpeer review.
choices.What is puzzling is why no scientist or researcher,
Further to our most recent post, we have nowespecially the most qualified ones in the indoor air
included Scientific Peer Review as the fifth keyquality or environmental sciences disciplines,
factor in our air purifier review model. Evenconsiders it worthwhile to do an air purifier review.
though it is likely to draw a blank in theBeing the first to produce a recognized scientific
foreseeable future, it is unavoidable. Firstly, thepeer review in a multimillion industry must surely
starkness may encourage someone to be theput one in the spotlight and open funding doors of
debutante in producing the first recognizedfurther research. And we know that initial funding
scientific peer review for an air purifier technology.is not an issue as we have a direct quote from
But more seriously, the lack of scientific peerthe US NIOSH that it is prepared to fund a
reviews is a major stumbling block to the airscientific peer review that is professionally drawn
purification industry. It has failed to win overup with the requisite parameters.
crucial participants and interested parties like theThat no scientist or researcher is willing to
scientific community (indoor air quality specialists,embark on the quest for a truly independent
academics, environmentalists and activists). Andscientific peer review begs the million dollar
most important of all, it has not garnered thequestion - is the air purification industry a big fraud
endorsement of government agencies like the USon the consumer? Or do the scientists view it as
EPA and NIOSH and the medical community whoa futile task comparable to hunting for the Holy
deal with allergy issues and other medicalGrail - truth that cannot be grasped?
conditions blamed on indoor pollution.The inability to answer these intriguing questions
Lacking in ALL air purification technologiesdrives us to greater inquiry with our 5-Key
There is not a single air purifier review thatFactors Model. The reticence of manufacturers to
contains a scientific peer review. Note that thiscomplete our survey questions based on the said
problem is not confined only to the ionic air purifiermodel piques us to delve deeper.
industry. It also plagues all other technologies inTo recap, the Air Purifier Review - 5-Key Factors
the air purifier industry, be it the venerable HEPAModel is as follows:
and the new-kid-on-the-block (relatively speaking)(1) Safety - in relation to the reactive agent
photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.(2) Safety - in relation to unintentional by-products
Why does no one in the air purification industry(3) Efficacy - the reactive agents work in the lab
taken cognizance of this? Instead, the industry(4) Efficiency - the reactive agents work in the
focuses its efforts on convincing the consumer.real world
Millions are spent on advertising. Good money that(5) Scientific Peer Review
could have been better spent. Why are they blindWe had previously explained each of the above
to the fact that the consumer base would multiplyfactors at length. We hope that manufacturers will
manifold if only there is one, just one scientificsee the need to be more transparent. After all,
peer review?we are their customers. It is senseless for them
It is a no brainer. As an integral part of any airto ignore us.