Ionic air purifiers derive from a multitude of technologies, all of which contain one or more beneficial reactive agents that claim to clean the air that we breathe. Manufacturers willingly publish test results to demonstrate the potency of these reactive agents against harmful contaminants.

Safety First – Beneficial Reactive Agents

Unfortunately, manufacturers are not as forthcoming with information on the potential harm to human tissue of users who are exposed to the reactive agents. The in-depth article dealing with this aspect is posted at EzineArticles.com.

Safety First Redux – Unintended By-products

Manufacturers are also not forthcoming about the by-products of their technology. Unbeknownst to many users, all ionic air purifier technologies generate by-products apart from the beneficial reactive agents. They are not deliberately produced but are simply unintended products resulting from current technological constraints.

Ozone, a component pollutant of smog, is the most common of these by-products. Smog, which hangs like a foggy cloud over some cities, is typically produced by the reaction of sunlight on automotive emissions such as carbon monoxide. Ozone in smog is blamed for many ills.

Please note that this article is not a discussion about ozone generators, a class of air purifiers that deliberately produces ozone in high enough concentrations to eliminate airborne contaminants. For instance, some hotels use ozone generators to get rid of tobacco smoke from rooms when they are being prepared for the next guest.

It is commonly accepted that ozone generators pose a danger to human tissue because ozone is an extremely reactive oxidizing agent. However, for some strange reason, ozone generators are still freely sold to home users as air purifiers. This controversy probably warrants another round of in-depth research in future.

All Ionic Air Purifiers Produce Some Ozone As A By-product

The focus of this article is on ionic air purifiers that do not deliberately produce ozone. There is no dispute that all ionic air purifier technologies are currently unable to completely eliminate ozone in the process of producing their beneficial reactive agents, be they negative ions, bipolar ions or plasmacluster ions and so on. It is a question of how much ozone is produced as an unintended by-product and at which point it becomes unhealthy and harmful to users of the ionic air purifier.

Most manufacturers emphasize that the ozone produced by their technology is very minimal. Often, they claim that it is way below 50 parts per billion (ppb), a measure of ozone concentration commonly cited by various parties around the world. Interestingly, there is no established legislation, only guidelines, regulating that ionic air purifiers cannot produce ozone in excess of 50 ppb. This leads us to the next question.

Is Ozone Concentration At 50 ppb Safe?

This is the million dollar question in the multimillion dollar ionic air purifier industry.

It is an even more important question for users (who typically have respiratory problems) of such purifiers since they may be harming themselves after spending good money on what they believe to be beneficial to their health. It should also be of great concern to health authorities since they are entrusted with setting safety standards that govern manufacturers and that users rely on when they use such equipment.

One would assume that the 50 ppb limit was scientifically set by some authorities, either medical or governmental. Shockingly, this does not seem to be the case. In fact, a prominent environmentalist suggested that this limit was arbitrarily set in the US FDA Amendment Act 1972 without any scientific basis. Yet, the 50 ppb figure is commonly cited, not just by manufacturers of ionic air purifiers but by health authorities all over the world as well.

To add to the controversy, the 50 ppb limit under the US FDA Act only applies to an air purifier that is sold as a medical device! Now, that’s easy to get around. It is not common to see air purifiers being advertized as medical equipment. They are typically sold as appliances for improving air quality in the home, office, factory or school. But to their credit, manufacturers of many ionic air purifiers are voluntarily using 50 ppb as a safety limit.

There is also some measure of control imposed by the US Consumer Safety Products Act which covers ionic air purifiers that are not sold as medical devices. In a 2006 study, a US Consumer Product Safety Commission found that the 50 ppb ozone limit appears to be safe. But the Commission did highlight that ozone also enters into human dwellings from outdoor air, the so-called ambient air. This may elevate the actual ozone concentration above 50 ppb when an air purifier is being operated. Strangely again, there is no legislation in the US Consumer Safety Products Act about the 50 ppb ozone limit.

California Takes The Lead – Manufacturers Of Ionic Air Purifiers Take Note!

In October 2008, the US state of California took the first steps to regulate compliance with the 50 ppb ozone limit. It is aimed primarily at ozone generators but the regulation also covers ionic air purifiers. Serious players in the industry should be factoring this very significant development in their strategies if they do not want to see their Californian market share “terminated” (pun intended).

As users of ionic air purifiers, it is also our responsibility to take the 50 ppb ozone limit even more seriously. In scrutinizing the technical specifications of any air purifier, additional factors to consider include noting that:

(1) the 50 ppb limit should be the average concentration over a 8-hour period;

(2) the 50 ppb limit may arise from the designed emission rate or from an accumulation over time;

(3) the ionic air purifier should ideally conform with UL867, a stringent US industrial testing standard.

Scientific Assurance That 50 ppb Is Probably Safe

There is some comfort from a 2008 scientific study by Brown, Bateson & MacDonnell which concluded that exposure to 60 ppb ozone over a 6.6 hour period causes only a biologically small effect on the lungs of 24 out of 30 young healthy adults. It does seem to provide some scientific basis for the 50 ppb limit even though the study was not designed to legitimize that. Note also that the test subjects were healthy adults whereas most users of ionic air purifiers would likely be dealing with some respiratory problems.

Is 50 ppb Really Safe Now?

The current research findings above provide some reassurance. Yet it is important to be aware that there are very prominent professors like Jeffrey A. Siegel and Richard L. Corsi from the University of Texas, USA who take the view that ozone at any level is dangerous.

They believe that ozone, even at concentrations as low as 10 ppb, triggers the formation of ultra-fine particles by interacting with chemicals (terpenes) in common household products like air fresheners, perfumes, floor cleaners and all-purpose cleaners. Ozone-induced ultra-fine particles are believed to be highly dangerous to both healthy and vulnerable human populations such as children, the aged and the chronically-ill, especially those with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions.

However the additional risks have not been quantitatively determined or adequately researched such that legislation or regulatory guidelines can be enforced. Neither is it possible at this time to declare conclusively that the downside outweighs the benefits of ionic air purifier technologies.

As with many products in our world, there are those who make it and those who fight it. Users are usually caught in between, not knowing the final outcome of their tussle until perhaps when its too late. The next big catch phrase in the ionic air purifier industry may well be “ultra-fine particles”.

Common Sense Precautions In Using Ionic Air Purifiers

In the meantime, why not adopt some common sense precautions even as we seek to tap on the benefits from an ionic air purifier:

(1) manufacturer recommends continuous operation – don’t just blindly follow, surely our nose can tell when its irritated;

(2) manufacturer recommends certain maintenance schedules – follow religiously here, even if it means forking out service fees;

(3) protect vulnerable members of the family – no one needs to be in a room while its being air purified;

(4) avoid usage of aerosols such as insecticides, air fresheners, perfumes and deodorants when running the air purifier;

(5) minimize other sources of ozone – e.g. outdoor ambient ozone, desktop laser printer;

(6) keep updated on developments in ionic air purifier technologies;

(7) keep track of research by prominent detractors who are eminently qualified e.g Prof. Siegel and Prof. Corsi.

There is no reason to be put off by having to take precautions when using an ionic air purifier. We do that for many appliances and machinery used in everyday living.

Ionic Air Purifiers – To Use Or Not To Use?

Despite all the controversy, there is no need to abandon the search for the ideal ionic air purifier. Why throw the baby out with the water? The ideal approach lies in keeping tabs with advancements in the various technologies, in encouraging manufacturers to be more open in their communications and in enhancing user understanding.

There is also no need to flee from ionic air purifiers to embrace the much-touted HEPA air purification technology simply out of fear or as a result of erroneous conclusions from inadequate research. There is no bias here against HEPA technology or any other air purification technology. HEPA is a time-tested great technology and should be used, but only for what it is designed to do. No one has claimed that HEPA will kill microscopic contaminants.

A key motivation for this on-going, almost obsessive, research into ionic air purifier technologies is preparing for the next global flu pandemic. To date, only the Sharp (no affiliation to the author) plasmacluster ion technology claims to destroy the bird flu virus in double quick time. Read more about this at The Ionic Air Purifier Blog.

You can also follow other aspects of the author’s growing scope of research at The Ionic Air Purifier Blog.

Min En writes on The Ionic Air Purifier Blog. His healthy cynicism about manufacturers’ commercial claims is transformed into positive energy that drives him to do very thorough research before buying any product. The Ionic Air Purifier Blog at http://www.ionic-airpurifiers.com/ documents his hunt for the ideal ionic air purifier.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Min_En
http://EzineArticles.com/?Ionic-Air-Purifiers—Safety-First-Redux&id=2084377

Strange but true. It is very, very difficult to find well-organized, properly documented scientific research about the technologies behind ionic air purifiers, a multi million dollar global industry!

Strange because if the science is solidly grounded, I would expect any manufacturer of ionic air purifiers to trumpet the scientific basis of their brand. I would expect them to expound on the efficacy and effectiveness of their unique technology. Even more so, I would expect them to profusely assure users that their technology is perfectly safe, that they kill microbes but are perfectly harmless to human beings. Sadly, my expectations are not met.

True because I have spent countless hours looking for scientific technical papers supporting the technologies behind existing ionic air purifiers that are on the market and yet I have very little to show for it. Whether deliberate or not, marketeers of ionic air purifiers simply do not bother to put up scientific papers on their websites. Where they do, they make no distinction between safety, efficacy and effectiveness of their specific brands. The scientific references are mentioned only in brief and do not provide enough detail for study by the serious prospective purchasers of the particular air purifier. It is as if manufacturers do not expect anyone to question and scrutinize their products!

Inaccessible Scientific Research

Where I have stumbled upon relevant scientific research papers on the web, they are not readily accessible as they typically come at a prohibitive cost, being charged on a per article basis! I suppose if I am an entrepreneur looking to manufacture a new ionic air purifier I would be willing to invest in the hundreds and possibly thousands of technical papers indicated at some scientific journal websites. But I am only looking for a reliably safe product to buy for my personal use!

It is unfortunate that the scientific world is also commercially driven so that research of great importance is not made freely available to all who are interested or who need to know.

Logical Criteria

Nevertheless, though my head is still spinning from the deluge of inconclusive and confusing web data, my search for the ideal air purifier continues, along these 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 on 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 setting i.e. home, office, factory, school etc.

Safety Issues

In this article, I want to concentrate on the safety of ionic air purifiers, a factor which I believe overrides the other two criteria of efficacy and effectiveness. There is no point having something that works wonderfully in eliminating microbes but is so powerful that it harms our health. Two important questions need to be answered:

(1) Do the purported beneficial active agents of ionic air purifier technologies cause harm to human tissue? Are negative ions, bipolar ions, hydroxyl radicals, Sharp’s patented plasmacluster ions or whatever name they go by, safe?

(2) Do the unintended by-products of the ionic air purifier technologies cause any harm to human tissue? By-products include ozone and nitric oxides that are highly reactive and known to be harmful in high concentrations.

Beneficial Active Agents – Do They Harm Human Tissue?

No scientific data is available on the web on whether negative ions, bipolar ions, hydroxyl radicals, plasmacluster ions etc are safe in that they do not harm human tissue. There is plenty of data that demonstrate that these active agents effectively eliminate microbes, a subject which I will deal with in a later article. Here I am concerned that the touted potency of the active agents are equally destructive on fragile human tissue. Why is there a paucity of scientific data when millions of dollars are spent by consumers on ionic air purifiers every year?

After extensive but fruitless web searches, I did the next logical thing – ask the manufacturers of ionic air purifiers! From a few enquiries, the answer slowly became clear – the scientific data exists but manufacturers do not want to make them public lest they incur the wrath of animal welfare groups! Is this a real fear or are they hiding some unpleasant truth about their product?

Googling “animal testing” immediately threw up the huge controversy surrounding the use of animals in testing the safety of products meant for human beings. A case in point would be that of Huntingdon Life Sciences, a UK research company that conducts safety testing of commercial products, pharmaceuticals and home appliances. To this day, there is much conflict between testing companies and animal welfare groups. No wonder the cloak of secrecy by ionic air purifier manufacturers who are likely to conduct safety tests using similar testing companies.

Documented Animal Testing

A chance web search result helped me to better understand the animal testing controversy. The safety tests mentioned on the website related to a liquid product, not directly related to any ionic air purifier technology. The liquid is applied onto furniture and other household fittings. In the explanation of one of the benefits, it is claimed that when ultra-violet light in sunlight shines on the liquid, hydroxyl radicals and superoxide ions are released into the air hence destroying any microbes like bacteria, viruses and mold that may be present.

To prove that the liquid is harmless to humans, four categories of safety tests were performed on mice, guinea pigs and rabbits (please be warned that you may find the next paragraph offensive and you may wish to skip to the next paragraph).

They are:

(1) Test for acute oral toxicity – the liquid was orally fed to mice;

(2) Test for primary skin irritation – the liquid was applied onto deliberately abraded skin of rabbits;

(3) Test for skin sensitivities – the liquid was injected under the skin of guinea pigs;

(4) Test for mutagenicity – the liquid was applied to salmonella bacteria to ascertain if they caused mutation in the bacteria nuclei so as to ascertain if the liquid has the ability to cause cancer.

Animals Unharmed

Pretty grim and repulsive stuff! I feel so even though the reports indicate that the tests were conducted in accordance with the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Chemical Testing. I can begin to empathize with the animal welfare camp about such safety testing. Fortunately, for this liquid product, all the animals (even the salmonella bacteria) were found to be unharmed by its application.

This brief insight into animal testing explains why manufacturers of ionic air purifiers refrain from publicizing or even making mention of such tests when they are conducted.

Safety Footnotes

Despite this concern of manufacturers, my web searches have revealed footnotes for certain brands whereby they indicate that safety tests have been conducted on the active agents. In searching for my ionic air purifier, I would be looking for such footnotes. I would expect that no animals had been harmed or the purifier would have no good reason to be on the market for human beings. I would also ascertain that the safety testing was conducted by reputable institutions that are accredited as GLP (Good Laboratory Practice), a set of principles issued by the OECD to recognize organizations which comply with strict scientific testing standards.

Human Testing

In the final analysis, does this mean that there is really no safety testing for the effects of active agents on human beings who use ionic air purifiers? Hardly, if you think about it. All the users become testers, having unknowingly volunteered by the act of purchasing one and using it!

Unfortunately, all we will hear on maufacturers’ websites would be glowing testimonials of the benefits of the purifier. Such testimonials, while helpful, come under the cloud of cherry-picking i.e. only the positive ones are featured. To be considered solid scientific proof that the active agents cause no harm to human tissue, the users’ operation of the ionic air purifier would have had to be subject to very stringent testing criteria and parameters of a GLP laboratory.

It would appear that this is an issue that will never be properly resolved. The only comfort for me is that many other products on the consumer market are sold in the same manner, purely on the good faith of manufacturers and considered safe until proven otherwise.

Safety – Second Aspect

In a future article, I shall discuss the second aspect of safety. Quite apart from the active agents, human tissue may also be harmed by potential by-products, deliberate or unintended, of ionic air purifiers.

You can also follow my on-going research at The Ionic Air Purifier Blog.

Min En writes on The Ionic Air Purifier Blog. His healthy cynicism about manufacturers’ commercial claims is transformed into positive energy that drives him to do very thorough research before buying any product. The Ionic Air Purifier Blog at http://www.ionic-airpurifiers.com/ documents his hunt for the ideal ionic air purifier.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Min_En
http://EzineArticles.com/?Ionic-Air-Purifiers—Safety-First&id=2039040

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

Whether by design or otherwise, there is also an information void about whether there are other by-products and if these are harmful to fragile human tissues as well. In the industry, however, it is known that current ionic air purifier technology inadvertently results in the production of by-products. In sufficient quantities, these may prove harmful to human tissue. One of the main by-products is the infamous ozone, which in high concentrations has been tested 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.

Though not exhaustive, our intensive research on these two perspectives have been condensed into two detailed write-ups that have been featured on Ezinearticles.com and are included in this blog.

(1) Beneficial reactive agents

(2) Unintended by-products

In addition, keep updated with our progress as we research other aspects of the very broad, intriguing and exciting field of ionic air purifier technologies on The Ionic Air Purifier Blog.