Air Purifiers Review – 5 Key Factors Model
We began with 4 factors but have now modified it to the 5 key Factors Model. With reference to our most recent post, we have now included Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.
The scarcity of scientific peer reviews is a humongous stumbling block to all the interested parties in agreeing with the claims of air purifier manufacturers, no matter how celebrated the latter may be. 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 situations etc.
It is very vital to note that this setback is not limited only to the ionic air purifier industry. It also plagues all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the esteemed 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 comparable to the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Any fortuitous manufacturer who gets it first must surely command the folkoric lion’s share in the multimillion dollar industry.
Given the supreme (no exaggeration here!) importance of a scientific peer review, the biggest mystery is why no one has deemed it worthwhile to undertake a single review. Rationally, no air purifier manufacturer has commissioned one since that would nullify the independence factor that is central to a scientific peer review.
What is baffling is why no scientist or researcher, specifically those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most trained to do an air purifier review, considers it worth their effort to do. Being first in any field must bring accolades. Being first in a multimillion dollar industry must be worth something. Surely there cannot be zero value in a scientific peer review for any air purification technology. As a matter of fact, we know that funding is available from the US NIOSH. They are prepared to fund anyone who can deliver a professional scientific peer review.
Why is there no scientist or researcher willing to commence 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? Incredibly, we have trouble even finding a single comprehensive independent air purifier review.
Riveting and thought-provoking questions these are, driving us to intense scrutiny 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 explained fully in separate Ezine articles which you can gain access to via the widget on our blog. Many thousands of our readers have also published our Ezine write-ups 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 sign up at our blog as well as we will shortly publish our first product review using the Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model.
