We began with 4 factors but have now amended it to the 5 key Factors Model. Further to our most recent post, we have now included Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.
Regardless of how illustrious the air purifier manufacturer may be, the deficiency of scientific peer reviews is a gargantuan setback to all the interested parties in accepting their postulations. Concerned 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 issues etc.
It is very vital to note that this impediment is not confined only to the ionic air purifier industry. Identical issues plagues all the other technologies in the air purification industry, including the traditional HEPA and the newer photo-catalytic oxidation methodologies.
It is almost as if, as an intrinsic essential of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is analogous to the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Any fortuitous manufacturer who gets it first will assume the same mythical supremacy in the multimillion dollar industry.
Taking into account the inordinate (no hype here!) value of a scientific peer review, it is perplexing that no one considers it worth their time to undertake a single review. Naturally, no air purifier manufacturer has commissioned one since that would void the independence factor that is central to a scientific peer review.
What is puzzling is why no scientist or researcher, in particular those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most adept to carry out an air purifier review, considers it worth their time to do. At a time when nanotechnology is the rage, it is strange that air purification technologies as pioneers of nanotechnology draws little interest from the scientific community. No one seems to place a value on carrying out the first scientific peer review in this multimillion dollar worldwide industry. More than strange. Funding is also not an issue. We know the US EPA had formerly funded such an venture for HEPA technology which unfortunately delivered inconclusive data. The US NIOSH has also indicated that it will fund a professionally drawn up, scientific peer review.
Why is there no scientist or researcher willing to plunge into an autonomous scientific peer review? It begs the million dollar question – is the air purification industry one big hype? One other possibility is that scientists view proving air purification technology as chasing the Holy Grail – a futile pursuit for those with limitless resources? It is a fact that, we have difficulty even finding one comprehensive autonomous air purifier review.
These very mystifying questions drive us to greater enquiry with our 5-Key Factors Model. The disinclination 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 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 access via the widget on our blog. Many 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 complete set of 5 factors, you are welcomed to do so.
Also, please register at our blog too as we will shortly launch our first product review based on the Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model.
Comments on this entry are closed.