Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model
Previously we had 4 key factors but now it is the 5 Key Factors Model. With reference to our preceding post, we have now included Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.
Regardless of how credible the air purifier manufacturer may be, the lack of scientific peer reviews is a gargantuan stumbling block to all the interested parties in assenting with their assertions. 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 specialised in allergies, asthma and other respiratory problems .
It is very important to note that this impediment is not confined only to the ionic air purifier industry. It also plagues all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the venerable HEPA and the new-kid-on-the-block (relatively speaking) photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.
It almost seems that, as a basic essential 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 garner the same legendary supremacy in the multimillion dollar industry.
Given the inordinate (no exaggeration here!) importance of a scientific peer review, the biggest mystery is why no one has deemed it worth their effort to endeavor a single review. Fortunately, no manufacturer has been reckless enough to ordain a scientific peer review for that would strike at its very integrity, a truly objective appraisal.
What is surprising is why no scientist or researcher, notably those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most competent to carry out an air purifier review, considers it worth their time to do. Air purification technology can be said to be prototypes of nanotechnology. Yet it seems so obsolete that no one deems it worth their while to spend time on a scientific peer review. Lack of initial funding is also not an issue. We know for a fact that the US NIOSH will fund a expertly set up 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? 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 difficulty even finding one comprehensive independent air purifier review.
These highly thought-provoking questions drive us to greater enquiry 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 piques us to delve deeper.
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 elucidated in detail in individual 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 full set of 5, you are welcomed to.
Also, do register at our blog as well as we are about to publish our initial product review using the Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model.
Mail this post
Tags: air purifier review, air purifiers, ionic air purifier review, ionic air purifiers, scientific peer review
Leave a Reply