Plasmacluster Ion Generator

Overview of Plasmacluster Ion Technology

By the application of positive and negative voltages to discharge electrodes in the Plasmacluster Ion generator, plasma is formed. Plasma is often described as the fourth state of matter after solid, liquid and gas. It is a partially ionized gas-like state wherein some electrons are free and not bound to an atom or molecule. Natural water molecules in the plasma are decomposed into positive hydrogen ions and negative oxygen ions. Other water molecules in the air cluster around the hydrogen ions and oxygen ions forming the distinctive and stable Plasmacluster Ions. Upon contact with the surfaces of pathogens, Plasmacluster Ions are transformed into hydroxyl radicals which are highly reactive but unstable. This characteristic causes the hydroxyl to combine with hydrogen atoms on the surface membrane of the pathogen. The result; a disabled pathogen and a harmless by-product, water. Simply perfect! But is it real?

Plasmacluster Ion – Fact or Fiction?

A serious Sharp air purifier review cannot avoid asking the inevitable – are Plasmacluster Ions fact or fiction? As with many other products rapidly emerging from the field of nanotechnology, Plasmacluster Ions are invisible to the naked eye. And the individual air purifier user has no means to verify its authenticity. One obvious verification method is to view the results of using Plasmacluster Ions. This is done in 2 ways, in the laboratory (efficacy test) and in the real world (efficiency test).

An established corporate player with a long track record of successes, Sharp has anticipated these concerns. It has developed to an art what they term as academic marketing. This is the collaborative research approach to product marketing, whereby the effectiveness of Plasmacluster Ion technology is verified based on scientific data developed in conjunction with leading academic research institutions. The data forms the basis of new products introduced to the market. Sharp has fine-tuned the definition of effectiveness into efficacy and efficiency. Between 2000 and July 2009, it focused on efficacy testing. It has begun and is developing efficiency testing with end users of Plasmacluster Ion technology.

Plasmacluster Ion – Authentication at Cellular Level

Digging deeper for this Sharp air purifier review, we found that Sharp had gone beyond the typical efficacy and efficiency tests of the industry. On 17 November 2004, Sharp announced the results of studies by Professor Gerhard Artmann of the Department of Cell Biophysics and Bioengineering, University of Applied Sciences, Germany. A leading authority in the field of cellular engineering, Professor Artmann through the use of an electron microscope found that Plasmacluster Ions damaged more than 60 protein types on the cell membrane of pathogens leading to inactivation of the cells (both bacteria and viruses were tested).

Another significant finding was that Plasmacluster Ions do not penetrate the pathogen cell membrane to impact the cell DNA. This is claimed as an advantage over other air purification technologies like those using ultra-violet light which rely on DNA destruction to work. The risk of UV light exposing users to cancer from DNA damage was subtly implied.

Plasmacluster Ion – Efficacy Tests

This current Sharp air purifier review highlights the efficacy tests that Sharp has conducted, together with several organizations, on various pathogens. Conducted over the years from September 2000 to July 2009, the tests have proven that Plasmacluster Ions are effective in removing 28 kinds of harmful airborne microorganisms. The most significant of pathogens are the deadly SARS virus, the virulent H5N1 avian flu virus, an earlier variant of the H1N1 virus which recently re-surfaced in Mexico and MRSA, the notorious bacterium responsible for difficult-to-treat infections in hospital patients.

Other viruses which have been destroyed by Plasmacluster Ions include coxsackie virus (causes colds), feline coronavirus, polio virus. Equally susceptible have been bacteria like serrata bacterium, enterococcus, staphylococcus, sarcina, micrococcus, bacillus subtilis, pseudomonas, escherichia coli, white staphylococcus and candida. Mites, mite dust (dead mites and mite feces), allergens and pollen have also been effectively dealt with together with fungi like cladosporium, aspergillus, penicillium, stachybotrys, alternaria, mucor and aspergillus.

The organizations, some of which conducted multiple tests, were:
- Harvard School of Public Health, USA
- Retroscreen Virology, Ltd., London, UK
- Asthma Society of Canada
- University of Lübeck, Germany
- CT&T, Aachen University of Applied Science, Germany
- Seoul University, Korea
- Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, China
- Ishikawa Health Service Association, Japan
- Kitasato Research Center of Environmental Sciences, Japan
- Kitasato Institute, Medical Center Hospital, Japan
- Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter, Hiroshima University, Japan

The most recent test reported on 27 July 2009 was conducted by Osaka City University Medical School to validate the inhibitory effects of Plasmacluster Ions on allergic reactions caused by mite allergens.

Wrapping up our Sharp air purifier review on efficacy tests, we would highlight that a key factor is that they were conducted by organizations which have attained GLP (Good Laboratory Practices) status, an OECD guideline that attests the reliability of tests results produced. GLP status has to be renewed every 3 years. GLP is an important factor that is often ignored by critics of air purification technologies. Another crucial fact – it is definitely possible for the work of a GLP laboratory to be peer reviewed scientifically. That, we know, is the key missing piece in the puzzle of air purification technologies, including Plasmacluster Ion technology!

Do sign up to follow our continuing Sharp air purifier review.

Technorati Tags: Air Purifier, Ionic Air Purifier, Ionic Air Purifier Review, Ionic Air Purifier Review - Efficacy, Sharp Air Purifier Review, Sharp plasmacluster ions

We chose to start with Sharp Corporation partly because it is a company that is nearly a century old. In business, age and track record counts a lot.

Our introductory Sharp Air Purifier Review at Ezine.com sets out the history of Sharp as a multinational corporation and the chronological development of their unique ionic air purification technology.

Founded in 1912, Sharp has had a long track record of innovations that resulted from a culture of cutting edge technological research and development. This tradition resulted in the invention of the renowned plasmacluster ion technology in 2000. Recognising the potential of this technology in a world that is more and more concerned about health and environmental issues, Sharp has expended extensive time, effort and money to bring this technology into everyday appliances at home, at work, in the factory, on the road, rails and even in airplanes.

But what impressed more than pedigree was that Sharp, amongst its competitors, seems to take pains in being transparent with information. Not perfect but enough to stand out. Whilst we are disappointed in not being able to get Sharp to respond to our survey questionnaire based on our unique Air Purifier Review – 5-Key Factors Model, we are still impressed with the abundant amount of information that they have made publicly available.

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

Focus on research and development resulting in the rollout of Plasmacluster Ion technology in air purifiers, air conditioners, refrigerators, cyclonic vacuum cleaners, washers/dryers and LED lightings.

(b) Phase II

Focus on “academic marketing”, a method that obtains scientific proof of the efficacy of a certain technology through collaborative research with leading academic institutions and developing consumer products based on this proof. Working with 13 academic research organizations around the world, Sharp aimed to boost confidence in this technology by demonstrating its efficacy against a total of 27 pathogens and harmful substances, including airborne viruses, allergens, mold and adsorbed odors.

(c) Phase III

Sharp is now moving towards demonstrating the effectiveness of the technology in actual living spaces.

As of 16 January 2009, Sharp is working with 24 different companies with a view to incorporate Plasmacluster Ion technology. 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.

What will follow in our Sharp Air Purifier Review includes an overview of their patent-pending Plasmacluster Ion technology, a chronicle of the “academic marketing” that Sharp has developed almost to an art and their plans to take this to the next level.

It will come as no surprise if it is Sharp’s undeclared aim to dominate the ionic air purifier industry. With their cutting age technology that is continually being improved and their flair in academic marketing, it will be no surprise that they will succeed.

It is also our belief that somewhere, someone is already working on producing the first scientific peer review in the air purifier industry. It will not surprise us that the most logical candidate will be Plasmacluster Ion technology.

If and when the debutante scientific peer review is announced, it will have 2 stunning impacts. First, Sharp’s already skyrocketing Plasmacluster Ion product sales will get a huge boost and the fleet-footed will pounce on Sharp shares! Second, the scientist’s name will be plastered on each and every piece of the millions of Sharp’s marketing literature!

To recap, our full Sharp Air Purifier Review of several articles will cover the following aspects:

(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.

Do sign up at our blog to follow our Sharp Air Purifier Review.

Technorati Tags: Ionic Air Purifier, Ionic Air Purifier Review, ionic air purifiers, Sharp Air Purifier, Sharp Air Purifier Review, Sharp plasmacluster ions

Our research indicates that the lack of scientific peer reviews is a major stumbling block to all the interested parties in accepting the claims of air purifier manufacturers, no matter how reputable the latter may be. These 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 deal with allergy issues etc.

It is very critical to note that this problem is not confined only to the ionic air purifier industry. It also plagues all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the venerable HEPA and the new-kid-on-the-block (relatively speaking) photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.

It almost seems that, as an integral part of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Whoever gets it first may well have the same mythical power of leadership in the multimillion dollar business.

Given the supreme (no exaggeration here!) importance of a scientific peer review, the biggest mystery is why no one has deemed it worthwhile to produce a single review. It is understandable that no air purifier manufacturer has commissioned one since that would negate the independence factor that is central to a scientific peer review.

What is puzzling is why no scientist or researcher, especially those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most qualified to do an air purifier review, considers it worthwhile to do. Being the first to produce a recognized scientific peer review in a multimillion industry must surely put one in the limelight and open doors for funding of further legitimate and worthwhile research. And we know that funding is not an issue as we have a direct quote from the US NIOSH that it is prepared to fund a scientific study that is professionally drawn up, with the requisite parameters.

The unwillingness 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? Or do the scientists view it a futile task equivalent to seeking the Holy Grail – truth that cannot be proven? In fact, we have difficulty even finding a comprehensive independent air purifier review.

These very intriguing questions drive us to greater enquiry with our 5-Key Factors Model. The reticence 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 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 at length in individual Ezine articles which you can access via the widget on our blog. 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, you are welcomed to.

Also, do sign up at our blog too as we are about to launch our first product review using the Air Purifier Review – 5-Key Factors Model.

Technorati Tags: Air Purifier, air purifiers, Ionic Air Purifier, ionic air purifier reviews, ionic air purifiers

Unofficial Endorsement

Manufacturers in the ionic air purifier industry pour millions into R&D to prove their claims. Institutes and universities are tasked to conduct multi-faceted studies. Well-known virologists and air quality experts are commissioned to conduct various experiments to verify manufacturers’ claims.

Yet other manufacturers of the ionic air purifier look to non-profit third parties with interests in promoting indoor air quality. Various attestations are sought after from non-profit organizations like the American Lung Association, the Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and the Asthma Society of Canada. 

User organizations like the Parent Tested Parent Approved Media may also provide some measure of attestation, as the manufacturer of an air purifier demonstrates. It is only a matter of time before manufacturers of the ionic air purifier follow suit.

Official Endorsement Lacking

Despite all the efforts by the ionic air purifier industry, why do we not find any official endorsement? Authorities are mindful of the dangers of polluted indoor air quality. In fact the US EPA officially states that indoor pollution may be 2 to 5 times worse than ambient air pollution. It also says that we spend 90% of our time indoors. Yet, why do they not endorse the ionic air purifier as an essential tool? This question was posed to the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Scientific peer review, or rather the absence of, was the response. Fortunately, the authorities have not written of the ionic air purifier industry.  Click on our Ezine Article via the widget on the right to:

• read what the NIOSH said about the stringent requirements for a scientific peer review; and
• find out how the NIOSH will provide funding for a scientific peer review.

The ionic air purifier industry should capitalize on this great opportunity. It may take only one successful scientific peer review to lead the pack!

What Can Consumers Do?

As it is, things are not ideal. What can users of the ionic air purifier do? Do systematic and thorough homework. That’s where our Ionic Air Purifier Review – 4 Key Factors Model is relevant. It is especially encouraging that for a scientific peer review to be accepted by any authority, it will have to cover the 2 safety aspects in our model. For NIOSH said:

“…a scientifically valid study would need to be designed to test whether ion generators are effective in killing viruses to the extent that a hazard no longer remains, and that such technology does not by itself generate new hazards of its own, e.g., ozone or oxidized by-products. The design of such a study would be challenging.” 

Sign up at the Ionic Air Purifier Blog to follow our research.

Technorati Tags: Air Purifier, air purifiers, Ionic Air Purifier, ionic air purifiers, scientific peer review

Existing ionic air purifier technology, regardless of whether they originate in North America, Europe, Japan or China produce a primary beneficial reactive agent. These reactive agents may be negative ions, bipolar ions, plasmacluster ions and so on. Their prime objective is to eliminate contaminants in the air we breathe. There is much research on the efficacy of these reactive agents in destroying contaminants. What we do not know is whether these same potent reactive agents also cause harm to fragile human tissues such as those that line our breathing passages from the trachea to the lungs.   

There is also an information vacuum about whether there are other by-products and if these are harmful to human tissues as well. However, in the industry, it is well established that current ionic air purifier technology inadvertently results in the production of by-products that may, in sufficient concentrations, prove harmful to human tissue. One of the main by-products which attracts much attention is ozone, which in high concentrations is known to be harmful to human tissues.

Accordingly, for the ionic air purifier user, the issue of safety has to be addressed from these two perspectives:

(1) Potential harm from the beneficial reactive agents, and

(2) Potential harm from the unintended by-products.

We have done intensive web research on these two important perspectives. The reports are featured on Ezinearticles.com.

Don’t miss these 2 in-depth Ezine articles. Simply click here to read both articles:

(1) Ionic Air Purifiers – Safety First

(2) Ionic Air Purifiers – Safety First Redux

Subject to their terms and conditions, Ezinearticles.com allows publishers to freely reproduce these two articles on your websites. Help yourself via these links:

(1) Beneficial reactive agents

(2) Unintended by-products

In addition, keep updated with our progress as we research other aspects of the very broad and exciting field of ionic air purifier technologies. Sign up for my updates at The Ionic Air Purifier Blog.

Technorati Tags: Air Purifier, air purifiers, Ionic Air Purifier, ionic air purifier reviews, ionic air purifiers, safety

Logical Selection Criteria

My personal search is turning out to be one that points me in the direction of setting up such a blog. It is a daunting task but I intend to press on along these logical selection criteria:

(1) Safety – the ionic air purifier technology must not cause any bodily harm to users;

(2) Efficacy – the ionic air purifier technology has been tested in the laboratory to really work on the basis of some thorough scientific research;

(3) Effectiveness – the ionic air purifier technology has been successfully transplanted from the laboratory into an appliance that will deliver the same results in a user’s setting i.e. home, office, school etc.

Safety

The first of my two write-ups on safety has just been published by the reputable Ezinearticles.com where I have been accepted as an expert author.

Please read the article at http://ezinearticles.com/?id=2039040

For publishers, do feel free to publish the article from http://ezinearticles.com/ezinepublisher/?id=2039040

Efficacy and Effectiveness

Meanwhile, I am working hard to complete the write-ups on the efficacy and effectiveness criteria and will post them as soon as they are thoroughly researched.

Do sign up for my updates at The Ionic Air Purifier Blog today.

Technorati Tags: ideal, Ionic Air Purifier, safety

Ionic air purifiers hold the promise of clean air, purified of all known harmful contaminants that threaten our health.  Air is made impure by substances unseen by our naked eye. The weapons against such are very likely to be invisible to our eyes as well. I am drawn to this intuitive logic.  Yet, even before an hour of internet research has lapsed, a whole deluge of controversy is thrown up by google.  Obviously, I must resist the urge to go by intuition and grab the first ionic air purifier that I lay hands on.  The search for an ionic air purifier must focus on its safety aspects as much, if not more, than its effectiveness against contaminants.

The recent China melamine saga that killed infants also serves as a reminder to us that in buying into any technology or any product, all claims by manufacturers and distributors must be screened to the fullest extent that our resources permit.  This is even more critical when the key reactive agent is unseen to the human eye. My investigation of ionic air purifier technologies falls within this realm, as the reactive agents are ions that are invisible to our eyes.

This article is an overview of existing ionic air purifier technology in the marketplace.  My back-to-basics approach is an attempt, as a layperson, to understand the science behind the technology. The current key trend appears to be the creation of a potent invisible defence shield against airborne molecular contaminants that threaten our well-being.  The prime threat being closely monitored by scientists all over the world is the avian flu virus.

Types of Ionic Air Purifier Technologies

Broadly speaking, air purification technologies can be deployed in either passive or active modes.  Passive typically means that impure air is drawn into the air purifier for the reactive agents to work on before re-emerging as cleaned air into the environment.  In active mode, the reactive agents are pushed into the environment with the impure air.  Combinations of both passive and active modes are often found in many types of ionic air purifiers.

In the global market today, ionic air purifier technologies include the following categories:

(A) Ion generator – positive and negative ions
(B) Ion generator – negative ions only
(C) Photocatalytic Oxidation (POC)
(D) Electrostatic filter
(E) Combos

Ion Generator – Positive and Negative Ions

This combination of positive and negative ions appears to show the most promise for the future of ionic air purifier technology. Pioneered by the Japanese corporate giant, Sharp Corporation, they are known as plasmacluster ions.

Sharp explains that the plasmacluster of positive and negative ions clump to harmful airborne bacteria and viruses.  In so doing, the production of hydroxyl is activated.  Known as nature’s detergent, hydroxyl is a powerful reactive species that plucks out hydrogen molecules from the organic structure of these airborne particles, thereby killing them.  The by-products of this chemical reaction, mainly water, are harmless.

A differential ion generator is used in this technology, comprising a positive and a negative ion generator which can be powered in alternate cycles to control the type of ions generated.

Advocates of the positive and negative ions combination claim that a balance of both these ion types is to be found in places like waterfalls and pristine forests, i.e. this is the real state of the natural environment. Proponents of negative ions believe that negative ions dominate the environment in these natural habitats and even insist that positive ions are harmful.  In this regard, I have yet to find independent scientific studies as evidence for the contradictory claims of both camps.

Ion Generator – Negative Ions

The traditional ionic air purifier produces only negative ions.  This method seems to dominate market share in the industry but is coming under serious threat from Sharp’s plasmacluster positive and negative ions technology.

It is claimed that nearly all harmful airborne particulates like dust, smoke and bacteria etc have a positive charge.  Negative ions from the air purifier attach themselves to these particulates until they get weighed down and fall to the ground.  Vacuuming removes these neutralised impurities and therefore protects us from them.  Critics of negative ion technology charge that the weighed down particulates are not destroyed and the mere act of walking around the room kicks them back into the air that we breathe.

In addition, there appears to be several methods of producing the negative ions.  This is important because different methods produce different by-products, some of which may be harmful.  These methods include:

(1) Water method – this employs what is known as the waterfall or Lenard Effect. Water droplets are splashed onto a metal plate where a small electric charge is applied.  This splits the water droplets, a process in which large numbers of negative ions are produced.  It is claimed that no harmful by-products are produced by the water method.

(2) Electron radiation method – this is based on a single negative discharge electrode needle. Millions of negatively-charged electrons are produced when a high voltage pulse is applied to the electrode.  An advantage of this method is that no ozone is produced.  This is due to the application of a “smaller” energy pulse.

(3) Corona discharge method – this is based on a dual electrode model, a sharp metal electrode and a flat electrode.  High voltage is applied between the electrodes.  The movement of electrons between the electrodes ionises the air in that same space.  A criticism of this method is the production of harmful by-products like ozone and nitride oxide.

Photocatalytic Oxidation (POC)

This technology is commonly applied in a passive mode.  It is also based on the powerful reactive agent hydroxyl which purifies impure air that is pulled through the air purifier.

Germicidal ultraviolet (UV) light is commonly shone on a catalyst (usually titanium oxide) to produce hydroxyl, oxygen and peroxide, all of which are potent oxidising agents that are very effective at destroying the organic structure of micro-organisms and gaseous volatile organic compounds.

It is claimed that the comprehensive defence that POC provides is its main strength.  Proponents of this technology claim that POC inactivates ALL categories of indoor pollution, including:

(1) airborne particulates i.e. dust, pet dander, plant pollen, sea salts, tobacco smoke, industrial and car pollution, etc

(2) bioaerosols i.e. biological compounds that may be infectious (e.g. viruses and pathogenic bacteria) or non-infectious (e.g. non-pathogenic bacteria, molds, cell debris)

(3) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) i.e. gaseous chemicals or odours – benzene, styrene, toluene, chloroform, hexane, ethanol, formaldehyde and ethylene all common emissions from everyday products of our modern home.

Critics of POC zoom in on the power effects of hydroxyl, claiming that they cannot differentiate between the organic structures that make up molecular contaminants and our lung tissue, eye cornea or nose membranes.

An academic commentary by an US university seems to suggest that POC technology is more effective against VOCs in the parts-per-million concentration range and may not be applicable to concentrations in the parts-per-billion range that is more typical of indoor air quality environments.

Electrostatic Filter

This technology appears to have originated in heavy industries which produced abundant pollutants. Typically, an electrostatic filter is made of a porous dielectric material that is positioned between two electrodes. A dielectric material does not conduct electricity while metallic electrodes are good conductors that transmit or receive electricity.

As impure air is drawn into the electrostatic purifier, it passes through the dielectric material which acts as a sieve.  The electrostatic field created between the electrodes causes airborne particulates i.e. dust, smoke contaminants, to stick to the surface of the dielectric. From the other end of the purifier, purified air emerges.

An ion source is often placed before the electrostatic filter to impart an electric charge to the airborne particulates. Charging the impurities make them adhere more effectively to the dielectric material.

Critics of this technology point to the production of harmful ozone in the ionisation process.

Combo Ionic Air Purifiers

To cater to the various adherents and critics of the diverse technologies, combos incorporate all or some of the above types of technologies. Combos may include:

(1) adsorptive materials such as activated carbon or oxygenated charcoal (known for its extremely porous large surface area) are added to POC technology to enhance the removal of VOCs;

(2) oxidizing catalysts like titanium oxide are coated on various components of all types of   air purifiers to enhance VOC elimination;

(3) reducing catalysts such as manganese dioxide are coated near the exit outlets of many air purifiers to reduce reactive species like ozone and nitric oxide which may be harmful;

(4) generating ions by differing methods such as using microwave, UV light, radio frequency waves, and direct current;

(5) tweaking the specifications of any ionic air purifier technology so as to attain the well-known HEPA status without actually using HEPA filters.

Obviously, the process of selecting the most efficient and effective ionic air purifier involves analysing a deluge of information.  And I have not even touched on the safety aspects of each technology.  Nor have I studied in detail the claims of each technology. So before you put your money down for any air purifier in your homes, offices, schools, etc, check back here for updates as I continue my quest for the ideal ionic air purifier.

To easily receive updates on new articles, subscribe to The Ionic Air Purifier Blog today.

Technorati Tags: Air Purifier, Ionic Air Purifier, Plasmacluster, plasmacluster air, plasmacluster air purifier, sharp plasmacluster, sharp plasmacluster air purifier