Sharp Air Purifier Review – 1st 5 Key Factors Model

   

Kicking off our debut Air Purifier Review – 5-Key Factors Model, we are starting with the Sharp Air Purifier Review.

In our previous post, we dealt at great depth about the Scientific Peer Review that is missing in the ionic air purifier market. Correspondingly, we have included Scientific Peer Review as a fifth key factor in our model. This is notwithstanding that it will be a blank space. We would be thrilled if the empty space will set off a budding scientist or researcher to produce the first independent scientific peer review for an ionic air purifier technology. If I am aiming to be noticed, being the first with a scientific peer review in a multi-million industry seems a logical choice.It would not surprise if every marketer of an ionic air purifier will then quote me!

Our Sharp Air Purifier Review of several articles will touch on all aspects of the Air Purifier Review – 5-Key Factors Model i.e.:

(1) Safety  –  in relation to the reactive agent
(2) Safety  – in relation to by-products
(3) Efficacy  – the reactive agents work in the laboratory
(4) Efficiency – the reactive agents work in the real world
(5) Scientific Peer Review.

Soon to be 100 years old, Sharp is a Japanese company with a solid track record. In business, that speaks volumes, which is why we picked Sharp for our first review. The first article of our Sharp Air Purifier Review at Ezine.com provides a brief history of Sharp Corporation and a concise overview of their unique ionic air purification technology.

Aside from impressive history, Sharp seems to be genuinely interested in being transparent with information. Not that there is total transparency, but it is enough to outdo others.

Sharp Air Purifier Review – Unusual Insight of Marketing Strategy

What can be more transparent than revealing the marketing strategy for Plasmacluster Ion Technology? Amazing! On 16 January 2009, Sharp explained its phased marketing approach as follows:

(a) Phase I

Intensive efforts on research and development resulting in the roll-out of Plasmacluster Ion technology in air purifiers, air conditioners, washers/dryers, cyclonic vacuum cleaners, refrigerators and LED lightings.

(b) Phase II

Concentrated attention on “academic marketing”, an approach that obtains scientific evidence of the efficacy of a certain technology through cooperative research with leading academic institutes and developing consumer products based on this proof that can be independently verified. Through 13 academic research institutes, Sharp proved the efficacy of Plasmacluster Ion technology against 27 harmful pathogens and substances, including a myriad of bacteria, viruses, mold, allergens and odors.

(c) Phase III

In its next major move, Sharp is demonstrating the effectiveness of the technology in real-life environments. On 16 January 2009, Sharp announced that it was currently working with 24 different companies to incorporate Plasmacluster Ion technology into their products.

These include whole house air conditioning system, commercial air conditioning and heating duct systems for hotels and hospitals, smoke control systems, car air conditioners, railcars, elevators, toilets, electric bathroom heater/ventilator/dryer, gas fan heater, mist sauna, air sanitizer, etc.

Our Sharp Air Purifier Review include several articles. These comprise an overview of the patent-pending Plasmacluster Ion technology, a look at what actually went into the “academic marketing” that Sharp has carefully honed into an art and also a peek into their future. Academic marketing is defined by Sharp in our Ezine article, accessible via the widget on our blog.

Unannounced but obvious, Sharp intends to monopolize the ionic air purifier industry. Their massive investment in the ever-improving state-of-the-art technology and their intense determination in academic marketing leave no doubt in our minds that they will thrive, sooner rather than later.

Do follow our continuing, Sharp Air Purifier Review at The Ionic Air Purifier Blog.

Tags: , , , ,

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: , , , ,