We began with 4 factors but have now modified it to 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 respectable the air purifier manufacturer may be, the deficiency of scientific peer reviews is a huge hindrance to all the interested parties in accepting their postulations. Interested parties include 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 deal with allergies, asthma and other respiratory issues.
It is very vital to note that this impediment is not restricted only to the ionic air purifier industry. It also affects all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the venerated HEPA and the new-kid-on-the-block (relatively speaking) photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.
It is almost as if, as an intrinsic constituent of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is almost like the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Any fortunate manufacturer who gets it first will assume the same storied leadership 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 time to embark upon a single review. To their credit, no air purifier manufacturer has ordained one since that would abrogate the independence element that is at the heart of a scientific peer review.
What is unfathomable is why no scientist or researcher, specifically those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most proficient to accomplish an air purifier review, considers it worth their energies to do. As end users of air purifiers, we want to know, we need to know. We don't just want to hear from the manufacturers. We want to hear from truly independent and proficient scientists with the knowledge, expertise and resources to execute a truly scientific peer review. Funding is also not an issue. It is known that the US EPA had formerly funded such an undertaking for HEPA technology which unfortunately delivered indeterminate findings. The US NIOSH has also intimated that it will fund a expertly drawn up, scientific peer review.
The hesitance of any scientist or researcher to embark on 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? Undeniably, we have difficulty even finding a single comprehensive autonomous air purifier review.
Stimulating and thought-provoking questions these are, driving us to intense 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 described in detail in individual Ezine articles which you can read 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 factors, you are welcomed to do so.
Also, do register at our blog too as we are about to launch our maiden product review based on the Air Purifier Review - 5 Key Factors Model.
