IS THE ROLE OF AIR PURIFIERS RECOGNIZED BY EVERYONE?

IS THE ROLE OF AIR PURIFIERS RECOGNIZED BY EVERYONE?

This article has a video that you can also watch here. To support more of these videos, go to patreon.com/rebecca!
Almost five years ago, I made a video about air purification. In a blissful 2017, the worst thing I can imagine is inhaling wildfire smoke because I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and half the state is on fire from time to time so the kids got their first N95 masks.

The mask was meant to go outside, but the problem was that the smoke was so strong that it seeped into my apartment and it was difficult for me to breathe even with the windows closed. That’s how the little girl got her first air purifier: Coway Airmega AP-1512HH True HEPA air purifier, Wirecutter’s first choice and thousands of satisfied online shoppers at the time. In my video I describe how it works: “(It) takes in air and passes it through a high efficiency particulate filter (HEPA). HEPA filters meet standards that govern how much particulate matter they can capture, from 85% to 99.999995% of particulate matter in the air.”

I then shared some interesting things I learned while working on the purifier: It has an additional feature called an ionizer, which “is a metal coil that charges the molecules in the air, negatively ionizing them.” in the air, attaching to them and then falling to the floor or sticking to the wall. This sounded strange, so I searched for information and found studies that support this description, including an NHS study that showed that the use of ionization in hospitals reduced the levels of some bacterial infections to zero.

Guys, I have an important update here: I could be wrong. I mean, I’m right, but I’m probably leaving people with the wrong idea, which is basically as bad as being wrong. I recently learned that the science of whether ionization actually purifies the air is not fully established and it may not work very well. I know this because a company that sells ionizers to control the spread of COVID is desperately suing the ever-shit-loving scientists working on air purification in a way that looks like they’re trying to shut them up. That’s right, that’s our old friend the Streisand effect, where trying to silence someone causes them to become amplified a thousandfold. Let’s talk about it!
With the outbreak of COVID-19, schools have been closed as epicenters for the spread of the disease. Obviously, this is very bad for the development and learning of children, so it is understandable that many people are looking for the fastest way to return to in-person activities. In March 2021, Congress passed the American Relief Plan, which provides $122 billion in aid to schools to reopen schools as soon as possible.
While money is clearly needed to reopen public schools, it has also prompted companies in the vent space to scramble for a piece of the pie. Wait, that’s a mixed metaphor. I think I meant “hurry up and eat a damn piece of meat” or something like that.

At least, because the US bailout doesn’t require schools to spend money on scientifically proven technology, which includes companies that make questionable systems like ozone manufacturers. As I mentioned in my previous videos, ozone probably won’t help, and is definitely bad for humans as it damages children’s lungs and aggravates asthma, so it’s not the best choice for purifying the air.
There are also companies selling ionizers, some of which promise schools a 99.92% reduction in COVID presence. Many school districts—more than 2,000 in 44 states, according to one survey—have purchased and installed ionization systems, leading a group of scientists and engineers who specialize in filtration systems to publish an open letter stating that ionizers have not been proven effective.
This amazed me because when I first examined my air purifier, I was skeptical but saw solid evidence that the ionizer part was working. I specifically mentioned the NHS study, which has shown good results in a hospital setting. But when I went back and looked closely, this study wasn’t about ionizers effectively removing particles and viruses from the air, but how ionizers could revolutionize how those particles are attracted or repelled by objects like fans. ways of spreading the disease in hospitals.
However, when it comes to air purification, my purifier relies almost entirely on a HEPA filter, which scientists know to be a very effective tool. Peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of ionizers is “limited,” the experts wrote in an open letter, showing “lower levels of effectiveness in eliminating pathogens, volatile organic compounds (VOCs, including aldehydes, than manufacturer-declared levels) and particulate matter.” They continued: “Lab tests conducted by manufacturers (directly or by contract) often do not reflect real conditions such as real classes. Manufacturers and distributors often combine these laboratory results, applied to different building conditions, to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the technique in various real-life situations.”
In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in May 2021: “Last summer, Global Plasma Solutions wanted to test if the company’s air purification device could kill particles of the covid-19 virus, but was only able to find it with the size of a shoebox. laboratories for their experiments. In a company-funded study, the virus had 27,000 ions per cubic centimeter.
“In September, the founders of the company, among other things, noted that the devices sold actually deliver much less ionic energy into a full-sized room – 13 times less.
“However, the company used the results of the shoebox — a reduction in viruses of more than 99 percent — to sell its device to schools in large quantities as something that could fight Covid-19 in the classroom, much more than a shoebox.” . .”

In addition to the lack of evidence of effectiveness, the experts wrote in an open letter that some ionizers may actually be harmful to the air, producing “ozone, VOCs (volatile organic compounds) (including aldehydes) and ultrafine particles.” Whether this happens or not may depend on other substances already in the environment, they note, since ionization can turn harmless chemicals into harmful compounds, such as oxygen to ozone or alcohol to aldehydes. oh!

So I don’t know, from my amateur point of view, there isn’t much scientific evidence to justify school districts spending millions of dollars installing ionizers when we have technology backed by a lot of evidence like HEPA filters, UV lamps, masks, open windows. Perhaps, in some cases, ionizers can be a great tool for purifying the air, but at the moment, in my opinion, the science does not necessarily exist, and they can do the same (or even more) harm.
One of the two authors of the open letter (also signed by 12 other experts in the field) is Dr. Marva Zaatari, a mechanical engineer and member of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Epidemiological Working Group. . According to Dr. Zaatari, her criticism of ionization has led companies to harass her and her colleagues. In March 2021, she said, a company called Global Plasma Solutions actually offered her a job, and the CEO posted a slightly threatening note that he would be “disappointed” if she turned it down (she did, ignoring the email). The following month, they sued her, alleging that she had slandered them for money because she was their competitor. They are asking for $180 million.
She hired a lawyer who informed her of the high costs of fighting the battle, so when she was in her “final financial situation” she finally decided to start a GoFundMe, which matches the transcript on my Patreon referring to earth.

Another air quality expert named Bud Offerman wrote an article in November 2020 criticizing ionizers and other technologies as “snake oil”. Offerman reviewed Global Plasma Solutions’ own test data and appeared to be unimpressed, concluding, “Most of these devices do not have test data showing they can significantly remove indoor air pollutants, and some can produce harmful chemicals such as like formaldehyde and ozone.” Global Plasma Solutions also filed a lawsuit against him in March 2021.
Finally, and perhaps most confusingly, in January, Global Plasma Solutions filed a libel suit against Elsevier, one of the world’s largest science publishers, to withdraw a study that found their Techniques ionizers to have “a negligible effect on concentration particles and loss rate” and “some VOCs decrease while others increase, usually within propagation uncertainty. “This is interesting because for the past two years I have been very interested in the effectiveness of various technologies against COVID-19, and of course I have always been interested in statements and quackery statements that can be misleading or outrageous. researched the effectiveness of ionizers before, and I have one and am very online. However, the whole story is completely missing me – I didn’t notice Dr. Zaatari’s open letter, nor PBS, NBC, articles on Wired or Mother Jones criticizing ionization. But now I’ve finally caught up, and it’s all thanks to Global Plasma Solutions trying to shut up a dedicated engineer. Thank you. I’ll turn off the ionization on my air purifier now.