In the first place it was 4, now it’s the 5 Key Factors Model. Further to our previous post, we have now added Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.

Our analysis [highlights]|findings [highlight]|indicate]|indicate] that the scarcity of scientific peer reviews is a enormous stumbling block to all the interested parties in assenting with the assertions of air purifier manufacturers, no matter how celebrated the latter may be. throng 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 attend to allergies, asthma and other respiratory problems .

It is a sweeping conjecture that only the ionic air purifier industry has this obstacle. Unfortunately, that is patently misguided. It permeates all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the traditional HEPA or the new (relatively speaking) photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.

It almost seems that, as an intrinsic fundamental of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is analogous to the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Any fortunate manufacturer who gets it first will amass the same storied dominance in the multimillion dollar industry.

Given the supreme (no exaggeration here!) importance of a scientific peer review, the biggest mystery is why no one has deemed it worthwhile to undertake a single review. Logically, no air purifier manufacturer has ordained one since that would negate the independence element that is at the heart of a scientific peer review.

What is unfathomable is why no scientist or researcher, specifically those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most qualified to execute an air purifier review, considers it worth their while to do. Air purification technology can be said to be harbingers of nanotechnology. Yet it seems so old-fashioned that no one deems it worthwhile to spend time on a scientific peer review. As a matter of fact, we know that funding is available from the US NIOSH. They are ready to fund anyone who can deliver a proficient 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 scientists view it a futile task akin to seeking the Holy Grail – truth beyond reach? Incredibly, we have trouble even finding one comprehensive autonomous air purifier review.

Fascinating and provocative questions, they drive us to intense enquiry with our 5-Key Factors Model. The unwillingness of manufacturers to complete our survey questions based on the said model piques us to explore further, 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 in detail in individual 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 full set of 5 factors, you are welcomed to do so.

Also, do register at our blog too as we will soon launch our initial product review using the Air Purifier Review – 5 Key Factors Model.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.