Air Purifier Reviews – 5 Key Factors Model

 

Initially it was 4, now it’s the 5 Key Factors Model. With reference to our previous post, we have now included Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.

Our indicates]|findings [highlight]|enquiries [highlight]|studies [highlight] that the dearth of scientific peer reviews is a mammoth barrier to all the interested parties in assenting with the claims of air purifier manufacturers, regardless of how credible the latter may be. 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 oversee allergy afflictions etc.

Commonly, it is taken for granted that this problem is limited to the ionic air purifier industry. It also plagues all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the revered HEPA and the new-kid-on-the-block (relatively speaking) photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.

It almost seems that, as an intrinsic constituent of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is similar to the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Any fortunate manufacturer who gets it first will amass the same folkoric supremacy in the multimillion dollar industry.

Considering the supreme (no exaggeration here!) importance of a scientific peer review, the biggest mystery is why no one has deemed it worth their time to embark upon a single review. It is logical that no air purifier manufacturer has commissioned one since that would void the independence element that is central to a scientific peer review.

What is bewildering is why no scientist or researcher, notably those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most qualified to carry out an air purifier review, considers it worth their energies to do. We know there is value in being first in any multimillion dollar industry. The air purification industry is undoubtedly in this class. Yet no scientist would come near it all these years to write an independent peer review. Something is amiss. And we know that funding is not an issue as we have a direct quote from the US NIOSH that it is ready to fund a scientific study that is expertly executed, with the necessary framework.

The hesitance of any scientist or researcher to undertake the quest for a truly independent scientific peer review begs the million dollar question – is the air purification industry a big fraud? 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 one comprehensive autonomous air purifier review.

Fascinating and provocative thoughts, they drive us to intense scrutiny with our 5-Key Factors Model. The reluctance 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 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 described at length in individual Ezine articles which you can access via the widget on our blog. Many thousands of our readers have also published our Ezine articles for their own subscriber base. If you have not read or published the complete set of 5, you are welcomed to.

Also, please sign up at our blog as well as we will soon publish our initial product review using the Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.