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

Colin Powell once said “ ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ is the slogan of the complacent, the arrogant or the scared. It’s an excuse for inaction, a call to non-arms.” 

As recently as 15 Mar 2009, complacent “myth-busters” were still given prime press coverage (see our post on Ionic Air Purifier & The Bird Flu Myth ).  Even now, as the WHO raises the pandemic alert to Phase 5, there are still detractors who are arguing that this is all a great conspiracy by capitalists to profit themselves. 

It is a good thing that there are influential people who do not believe in complacency, and who are willing to stand up against skepticism, indifference and ignorance. 

Take the almost prophetic warning from Professor Ray Anderson from the Imperial College London. In a press report on 18 April 2009, headlined “The next one will strike suddenly”, he warned that “…the next major mortality-inducing infectious agent will be a surprise. Rather like the HIV virus and SARS, it will come out of nowhere.” 

Asia has been on the microscope for a long time, but it is emerging from Mexico, officially only on 25 April 2009. And instead of bird flu virus H5N1, it is some new virus strain named A(H1N1)!

TAKE SOME PRECAUTIONS 

Common sense dictates that we make some preparations as we do not know if this will blow away next week or become Prof Anderson’s “next one”.  The old maxim of being prepared is half the battle won is making sense again. 

Don’t panic so you can think clearly. Just take some common sense precautions. 

PROFITEERING, NOT PROFIT 

To the sneering skeptics, profit-making is not the problem. Without profit, very little motivates any man. What we want to guard against is profiteering. 

Even as I do my best to be prepared and help my readers be prepared, I am still a victim of profiteering. Just this week, whilst sourcing for the N95 respirator for a family member who cannot avoid visiting the hospital 3 times a week, I had no choice but to give in to profiteering. Within an hour, even as I hesitated, the price had jumped 10%. Same product, same supplier, mind you! 

For your information, I bought the Kimberly-Clark Fluidshield PFR95 N95 Particulate Filter Respirator and Surgical Mask (Product code 46767). This mask is approved by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Having experienced how suffocating the 3M N95 respirator (approved by the US FDA) can be during the 2003 SARS, I am opting for the Kimberly Clark as my source is a dentist who uses this on a regular basis for the reason that its “breathable” when you need to wear it for long periods of time. 

WHERE TO BUY 

If you have your own local sources, why not buy some respirators to stock up before you become a victim of profiteering like me.

Read on if you still want to know what to buy. 

Kimberly-Clark 

There is an Amazon link showing an image of the Kimberly Clark (Product Code 46767). 

Kimberly-Clark N95 Particulate Filter Respirators; Bacterial Filtration: 95% at 0.3 micron; Regular

It looks like this image from Kimberly Clark’s website. My concern is its almost the same price (exchange rate of 1.5!) as what I agreed to pay but in US$. Another concern is that the Product Code 46767 is not shown.  Instead, a Part number 189991445 is indicated. My supplier is unable to confirm for me that the Product Code 189991445 and Product Code 46767 are identical products.

A Kimberly Clark alternative 

Apart from the above respirator, the Kimberly Clark PFR95 N95 Respirator (Product Code 62126) is also approved by NIOSH. 

For a box of 50, its selling at US$39.99.  I tried to buy 4 boxes but found that they do not ship to my country. Shucks! So, if you want, hit this link before their stock disappears.

3M

For those who prefer the 3M N95 respirator(approved by NIOSH), please note that 3M itself recommends only the Product Codes 8612F and 8670F.

3M 8612F

3M 8670F

We are currently unable to find these exact product codes at Amazon.com. But North Americans can probably find a local dealer via the 3M site. 

Disclaimer by manufacturer 

Please be aware that the respirator, whilst preferred over the regular surgical masks, does not provide 100% protection. It is the best that the manufacturers can offer currently. 3M provides an excellent FAQ. 

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

Technorati Tags: N95, Pandemic Phase 5, Respirators, Swine Flu

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

Relax, bird flu pandemic is nothing more than an urban legend, says Professor Philip Alcabes, professor of urban public health at the University of New York. In a Washington Post press article on 15 Mar 2009, he debunks as 5 myths the 5 major thoughts motivating health authorities, namely:

(1) Infectious diseases are spreading faster than ever

(2) To learn how to prevent a pandemic, look to the past

(3) We should brace ourselves for another Spanish flu

(4) The annual flu season is nothing compared to a pandemic

(5) There’s no such thing as being too prepared.

Relax, no way! Says Professor Albert Osterhaus, a Dutch virologist who identified the SARS virus in 2003. In a Straits Times report dated 21 Feb 2009, the professor was quoted saying “What we’re seeing today is unprecedented in history. The virus has spread in Europe, Asia and Africa. It’s still spreading, and it’s not going down. It’s not under control.” Other highlights reported:

(1) More than 60% of the over 400 infected people have died

(2) Most infections have been from bird to man but all it takes is a slight virus mutation to make human-to-human transmission possible

(3) When that happens and if its not controlled in 4 weeks, then it’s “out of the box” pandemonium

(4) Its illusory to think a full-blown outbreak can be contained as incubation is short, onset is rapid, infectivity early.

That’s apocalypse stuff, a stark contrast to Professor Alcabe!

As usual, we in the middle are none the wiser when two bigwig professors disagree. So, to buy or not to buy an ionic air purifier? And which is the best air purifier?

Remember, most health authorities believe the best course of action is keeping alert for emerging flu strains and preparation by having vaccines. In our view, they ignore the right ionic air purifier, to our peril.

Countries, like Japan and Switzerland, are already doing pre-pandemic priming. That’s the process of giving the first of 2 vaccine doses to key frontline personnel (medical healthcare workers, police, military men). There will then be no time lost in giving them the critical second dose when a pandemic breaks out. No mention of using ionic air purifiers anywhere.

Governments have to prioritise vaccines. It seems sensible that, we should use products like an ionic air purifier while we await our jabs, which may take a while. Not just any but the right ionic air purifier.

Authorities typically shy away from endorsing any commercial product. Why? Even vaccines are commercially produced. There is no lack of other precedence. For example, this US government site openly endorses several commercial brands.

Such governmental endorsement mitigates confusion when people panic. It also reduces the inevitable hoarding and profiteering that rears up whenever widespread crisis occurs.

We hope that despite stretched resources, governments will assign people to test the claims made by commercial organizations. Apart from essentials like face masks, respirators (e.g. N95) and anti-contaminant handwashes, air purifiers (especially ionic air purifiers) which are claimed by manufacturers (like Sharp plasmacluster ions) to be 99.9% effective against the H5N1 virus immediately come to mind as a priority stand-by appliance to have.

For more updates on bird flu and ionic air purifiers, sign up for our e-mail updates or click on the cute little RSS guy at the top right-hand corner.

Technorati Tags: Air Purifier, Best Air Purifier, Bird Flu, Ionic Air Purifier, pandemic, Plasmacluster, Sharp plasmacluster ions

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