Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model
Initially it was 4, now it’s the 5 Key Factors Model. With reference to our prior 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 deficiency of scientific peer reviews is a oversized obstacle to all the interested parties in approving the assertions of air purifier manufacturers, regardless of how prominent the latter may be. What interested parties? 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 manage allergies, asthma and other respiratory issues .
It is very critical to note that this setback is not confined only to the ionic air purifier industry. It cuts across all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the well-trusted HEPA or the new (relatively speaking) photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.
It almost seems that, as a necessary part of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is likened to the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Whoever is fortuitous enough to get it first will assume the same legendary power of undisputed leadership in the multimillion dollar business.
Given the inordinate (no embellishment here!) importance of a scientific peer review, the biggest mystery is why no one has deemed it worth their time to undertake a single review. It is reasonable that no air purifier manufacturer has ordained one since that would negate the independence factor that is central to a scientific peer review.
What is perplexing is why no scientist or researcher, in particular those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most trained to accomplish an air purifier review, considers it worth their time to do. We still don’t get it. Would a scientist help us by commenting? Pray tell us why no one is interested in carrying out an independent peer review of any air purification technology. Lack of initial funding is also not an issue. We know for a fact that the US NIOSH will fund a proficiently executed 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? Or do the scientists view it a futile task equivalent to seeking the Holy Grail – truth that cannot be proven? Incredibly, we have trouble even finding one comprehensive objective air purifier review.
Riveting and thought-provoking questions these are, driving us to intense scrutiny with our 5-Key Factors Model. The aversion 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 explained in detail in separate Ezine articles which you can gain access to 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, you are welcomed to.
Also, please register at our blog too as we plan to launch our initial product review using the Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model.
