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

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

Ionic Air Purifier Reviews – Why Are Expectations of Users Not Met?

Users are not getting the factual data that they need to make well-informed decisions about ionic air purifiers. 

Reviewers become too focused on promoting a certain brand of ionic air purifier due to their motivation for financial gain, say when they are affiliates earning a cut for every unit sold from their link. 

Other ionic air purifier reviewers may “fall in love” with a product out of brand loyalty, nationalistic sentiment or simply, irrationality. 

Brand loyalty is difficult to explain. It is akin to motorists always filling up with Shell petrol even though other brands are identical in composition, as a friendly insider of that industry lets out. 

Nationalistic sentiments may arise from bad consumer incidents causing notoriety for the affected country such as the 2008 milk scandal in China leading consumers to be wary of all things Chinese. But such sentiments ignore the fact that many reputable international brands of ionic air purifiers are made in China but subject to the same stringent quality checks that apply regardless of the country of manufacture. Such ionic air purifier reviewers also ignore the fact that there are many defective products, including ionic air purifiers, made in their own home country. 

Ionic Air Purifier Reviews – Why Are Expectations of Manufacturers Not Met?

Manufacturers are wary of ionic air purifier reviewers making wild claims that their products are not designed to deliver. This can cause serious problems for them from health authorities, consumer advocate groups, advertising regulatory authorities, among others. 

In the US, the FDA stipulation that the ozone concentration produced by an air purifier must not exceed 50 parts per billion applies only if the product is sold as a medical device. At the moment, it is believed that there is no ionic air purifier that is manufactured in North America as a medical device. The only known ionic air purifier brand that is marketed as a medical device is Elanra, a product of Australia. These are important facts to bear in mind whenever you read ionic air purifier reviews that make the claim that the product is of medical grade.

Other inaccuracies frowned upon by manufacturers include claims that the ionic air purifier is 100% ozone-free, or is capable of eliminating all classes of airborne contaminants, etc. These are important facts that matter to the user as ozone above certain concentrations can be harmful to human health and certain gaseous contaminants (known as volatile organic compounds or VOC) are outside the design scope of certain ionic air purifiers. 

The 4 Key Factors Ionic Air Purifier Review – A Better Alternative

To address the above concerns of manufacturers and to meet the needs of genuine searchers for an ionic air purifier, we have formulated The 4 Key Factors Ionic Air Purifier Review. Other reasons for using this approach are elaborated in our Ezine Article that is pending approval. 

In bullet summary, our rigorous reviews will focus on the 4 Key Factors that have been covered at length in this author’s articles at EzineArticles.com:

(1) Safety – the beneficial reactive agents of the ionic air purifier technology must not cause harm to human tissue;

(2) Safety – the unintended by-products of the ionic purifier technology must not cause harm to human tissue;

(3) Efficacy – the ionic air purifier technology is based on sound scientific theory that has been conclusively proven in a laboratory to really work;

(4) Efficiency – the ionic air purifier technology has been successfully transplanted from the laboratory into an appliance that will deliver the same results in users’ settings at home, in school, in the workplace etc.

The 4 Key Factors approach will invite manufacturers of ionic air purifiers to provide technical specifications, invite manufacturers to present their case and will analyze and summarize their answers. A survey of more than 50 questions each has been sent to a few prominent manufacturers. We hope they will respond to the win-win situation in our efforts and contribute to the only one-stop ionic air purifier reviews database on the internet, by a user, for all users. 

Help us to convince manufacturers to work with us, for your benefit, as you hunt for the most suitable ionic air purifier to meet your needs. 

VOTE at the poll on the right in favour of the 4 Key Factors Ionic Air Purifier Review.

Sign up at The Ionic Air Purifier Blog to keep track of our 4 Key Factors Ionic Air Purifier Review.

Technorati Tags: ionic air purifier efficacy, ionic air purifier efficiency, Ionic Air Purifier Review, ionic air purifier reviews, ionic air purifier safety

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