To begin with 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.
The shortfall of scientific peer reviews is a monmental stumbling block to all the interested parties in assenting with the assertions of air purifier manufacturers, regardless of how illustrious the latter may be. A whole [array of concerned parties]|crowd of interested parties who] would love to have the controversy resolved once and for all. These parties include 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 oversee allergies, asthma and other respiratory situations .
It is a commonplace assumption that only the ionic air purifier industry has this problem. Unfortunately, that is definitely misconstrued. Similar issues affects all the other technologies in the air purification industry, including the traditional HEPA and the newer photo-catalytic oxidation methodologies.
It almost seems that, as a basic requisite of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is similar to the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Whoever is fortuitous enough to get it first will garner the same legendary power of undisputed domination 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 while to undertake a single review. Fortunately, no manufacturer has been foolhardy enough to commission a scientific peer review for that would strike at its very heart, a truly objective evaluation.
What is baffling 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 execute an air purifier review, considers it worth their energies to do. Air purification technology can be said to be prototypes of nanotechnology. Yet it seems so passé that no one deems it worth their while to spend time on a scientific peer review. Funding is also not an issue. It is known that the US EPA had in the past funded such an venture for HEPA technology which unfortunately yielded vague findings. The US NIOSH has also signaled that it will fund a proficiently designed, scientific peer review.
Curiously, why isn’t there a scientist who finds it worthwhile to produce a scientific peer review. A million dollar question begging for an answer - surely the air purification industry is not just fantasy? Or do the scientists view it a futile task equivalent to seeking the Holy Grail – truth that cannot be proven? It is a fact that, we have trouble even finding one comprehensive objective air purifier review.
Interesting and fascinating, these thought-provoking questions compel us to deeper research with our 5-Key Factors Model. The aversion of manufacturers to complete our survey questions based on the said model piques us to want to know more, so stay tuned to our efforts.
To recap, the Air Purifier Review - 5 Key Factors Model is as detailed:
(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 described fully in separate Ezine articles which you can read 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 complete set of 5, you are welcomed to.
Also, do register at our blog too as we plan to publish our first product review utilising the Air Purifier Review - 5 Key Factors Model.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Post a Comment