Ionic Air Purifier – Scientific Peer Reviews or No Deal?

2009-05-31T01:06:00.000-07:00

It’s not uncommon to find criticism about the ionic air purifier industry. “No scientific peer review” has been a frequent response when comments are posted on flu, indoor air quality and environmental blogs.

Yet these supporters of the peer review system may be surprised to read the following comments by John Moore, a trained researcher at Cornell University, New York:

“the peer review system…it’s the least-bad system that can be devised”
“not everything in the peer-reviewed literature is correct. Indeed, some of it is downright bad science”
“a lust for profit has led to too many journals,…all too easy to find…poor-quality work”

Mr. Moore warns the lay public that the scientific peer review is not necessarily the “gold standard” as “even reviewed literature can be cherry-picked to support any argument.” Instead, he reminds us that “professional scientists…know that scientific truth evolves on the basis of a mounting consensus, not through an isolated paper that adopts a maverick position, even if it has been peer-reviewed.”

The ionic air purifier industry can certainly benefit from the wisdom of Mr. Moore.

It needs to know that not only do its critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard but the powers to be as well. How do we know? We asked the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and this was their response:

“NIOSH is not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of ion generators/ionic air purifiers against viruses. NIOSH does not have any studies planned to evaluate these devices nor do we have a policy on their use.”

But what was encouraging was that the NIOSH has not closed the door totally. This was another response from NIOSH:

“NIOSH provides support for investigator initiated research. Should someone want to conduct such studies they may apply for funding by mechanisms available and described under "Funding Opportunities" at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/oep/. Proposals are funded annually based on availability of funds, relevance of the proposed work to the NIOSH mission, and the quality of the science proposed.”

At our Ezine article (accessible via The Ionic Air Purifier Blog Ezine widget), there is an elaboration of the NIOSH’s exacting parameters of a scientific peer review.

Since it is not a question of funding or outright rejection by the authorities, why isn’t there any scientific peer review of the ionic air purifier after all these years? Would someone from the industry care to comment?

In our view, developments in ionic air purifier technologies ought to embolden manufacturers to capitalize on available official funding. After all, just one successful scientific peer review may be the very trump card they all need to beat the competition? Ideally, there should be Mr. Moore’s “mounting consensus” in validating the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of the ionic air purifier.

Ionic Air Purifier – What Can Consumers Do?

Meanwhile, users looking for the ideal ionic air purifier can rely on our Ionic Air Purifier Review – 4 Key Factors Model. It has been most encouraging to know that a scientific peer review that is acceptable by any authority must 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.”