May 10th, 2006
UPDATE: $400 Sharper Image Ionizing Air Filter Found Potentially Damaging to Respiratory System
By Alice Hill
RealTechNews
Note: This posting originaly appeared on RealTechNews in November 2005. And today there are more agencies jumping on the bandwagon to warn consumers against these air purifying devices. Some new finding show that these devices are like smog. The increase ozone levels to what qualifies as a Los Angeles Stage 2 Smog Alert. We Say: Smog? We can get that for free outside anytime.
According to the study, which appears in the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, using an ionic air purifier in a sealed room can lead to ozone levels as high as 350 parts per billion, a level equivalent to a Los Angeles Stage 2 Smog Alert. The EPA has already come out against ozone-producing air purifiers, saying that they have “little potential to remove indoor air contaminants.” Source: Engdget
Oh the irony. You shell out $400 to help clear the air and assist your breathing if you have asthma, but now Consumer Reports has found that these ionizing technologies may actually be bad for your health. I always found those filter things to be a bit extreme, didn’t you?
Original Report:
“Growing numbers of people with allergies and asthma are coughing up hefty sums for heavily marketed indoor air cleaners they hope will provide purer air to breathe. But a study in the May issue of Consumer Reports describes some of these devices as not just ineffective but capable of exposing people to ozone — a gas that, in large enough quantities, can damage the lungs, irritate the respiratory system and aggravate asthma, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
“The devices, known as ionizing air cleaners or electrostatic precipitators, work by electrically charging airborne particles and trapping them on oppositely charged metal plates, according to the American Lung Association (ALA). Ozone, a super-charged oxygen molecule, is a byproduct of this process. In contrast, says the association, the most common type of air purifier includes a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, which traps most particles and removes odors while producing much lower amounts of ozone.
“The findings are particularly worrisome because about 80 percent of people who buy air cleaners have asthma or allergies, according to the magazine. Air ionizers make up about 25 percent of the $410 million-a-year air cleaner market, according to the report, which was issued by the nonprofit Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports books and magazines. The report marks CU’s second criticism in two years of the Ionic Breeze ($400), which leads the ionizer market. Once again, the product earned “poor” ratings from CU for cleaning dust and smoke from the air; the new report also found the device poor at removing pollen. “Source: Washington Post via Gizmodo
Technorati Tags: Ozone, ionizers, Sharper Image, Health, RealTechnews, Alice Hill
Luke says:
We have been using this ionic breeze for several months and have not had any problems. In fact we have noticed a reduction in pet oders, no lung coughing symptoms, etc. One has to wonder why this article is appearing? Could it be because the ionic breeze has a very bullet proof patent so that no other air filter products can compete?
- Luke
May 10th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Robert says:
People exposed to above average levels of Ozone usually take 4 - 5 years to develop lung cancer. So maybe you should post your comment then, Luke.
In the meantime, I highly doubt this article is being posted out of jealousy. The fact is that the dangers of ozone are well documented in the scientific community. Sharper image can keep their patent. I can name at least a dozen air purifiers which will outperform the sharper images sorry excuse for an air cleaner.
If anyone wants a pretty piece of plastic, that doesn’t move much air, that isnt very efficient, and tat also produces a substance which can KILL you, then by all means go buy an Ionic Breeze….otherwise, do what hospitals do and go with carbon, hepa, and possibly UV (germicidal only).
BTW, Luke…looks like you work for Sharper Image or one of their distributors maybe. You’re a real champ bud. Hope you realize you’re killing people to keep your marketing machine alive.
May 11th, 2006 at 4:14 am
Ikaruga says:
Ditto Luke. I doubt that the Consumers Union is doing this to take down their patent.
I remember I had bought one of these a couple of years back and tried it out for the 30 days they give you—the way the air felt just didn’t feel right, so I returned it.
I guess my hunch was right.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:25 am
Mark says:
Ground level ozone is a criteria pollutant that local, state, and federal air quality agencies spend a great deal of resources battling. It has both acute (short exposure, high dosage) and chronic (long exposure, low dosage) effects. To learn more about ozone generators and the health impacts of ozone, go to: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/ozone_gen_fact_sheet-a.pdf and:
ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/research/aaqs/caaqs/ozone/ozone6.pdf
May 11th, 2006 at 7:35 am
Wayne says:
I had one and sold it on ebay. I couldnt stand the bleachy smell in my home. Turns out I made a smart move. I went to a company called HepaCore. They only deal with HEPA filtration for your home. I slapped one of those babies in the house. 100 times better. House even seems cleaner (no, they arent paying me for the PLUG - should though)
May 12th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Drew says:
Whoa there Robert. Looks like someone needs to take a nap and relax. I’ve been using these Ionic Breezes for just over 2 years, so if I get cancer in another 2, I’ll be sure to tell you you were right.
“BTW, Luke…looks like you work for Sharper Image or one of their distributors maybe. You’re a real champ bud. Hope you realize you’re killing people to keep your marketing machine alive. ”
May 12th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Ric says:
Perhaps Ms. Hill should spend some time checking her facts before jumping to conclusions, instead of just parroting incorrect information posted on Engadget. The story on Engadget was based on a story originally posted on LiveScience.com which has since been corrected as the author did not actually read the University of California Irvine study, only a press release. From that release he made an incorrect assumption, not realizing that what the study was really indicting were air purifiers relying solely on ozonolysis, the production of ozone, rather than electrostatic precipitators like the Sharper Image units which produce small amounts of ozone as a byproduct. In the UCI study the Sharper Image units were all found to have ozone output well below any current or anticipated health standards. The author of the original story on LiveScience.com posted this correction:
Correction: This article in its original form was inaccurate. The study involved two types of air purifiers, those commonly called ionic and those that employ a process called ozonolysis. Only those using ozonolysis were found to contribute to ozone levels that can in some cases exceed air quality standards. “Ionic air purifiers do emit ozone,” said lead researcher Sergey Nizkorodov, a chemistry professor the University of California, Irvine. But he added that “none of the ionic air purifiers produce enough ozone when they are used properly to exceed smog alerts.” The confusion was generated in part by a UC Irvine press release that did not clearly distinguish between these two types of machines. LiveScience regrets the error and any confusion it may have caused. The article has been revised.
May 13th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Al Coholic says:
I eat my own poop.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Степа says:
Спасибо автору. Возможно, в будущем я и правда реализую аналогичную затею.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:31 am