We began with 4 factors but have now amended it to the 5 key Factors Model. With reference to our most recent post, we have now added Scientific Peer Review as the fifth key factor in our air purifier review model.

No matter how celebrated the air purifier manufacturer may be, the paucity of scientific peer reviews is a towering barrier to all the interested parties in assenting with their assertions. These concerned parties include the scientific community such as indoor air quality specialists, environmentalists (both academics and activists), government agencies like the US EPA and NIOSH, the medical community who specialised in allergy afflictions etc.

It is very important to note that this obstacle is not restricted only to the ionic air purifier industry. It cuts across all other technologies in the air purifier industry, be it the conventional HEPA or the new (relatively speaking) photo-catalytic oxidation, etc.

It is almost as if, as an intrinsic requisite of any air purifier review, the scientific peer review is analogous to the holy grail of the air purifier industry. Getting it first may well bestow upon that fortunate manufacturer undisputed supremacy in the multimillion dollar industry.

Taking into account the supreme (no embellishment here!) power of a scientific peer review, it is mystifying that no scientist has deemed it worth their time to undertake a single review. Luckily, no manufacturer has been reckless enough to commission a scientific peer review for that would strike at its very heart, a truly reliable assessment.

What is inexplicable is why no scientist or researcher, in particular those in the indoor air quality or environmental sciences disciplines who would seem the most competent to carry out an air purifier review, considers it worth their while to do. Being the first to produce a recognised scientific peer review in a multimillion industry must inevitably put one in the limelight and open doors for funding of further admissible and valuable research. Lack of initial funding is also not an issue. We know for a fact that the US NIOSH will fund a proficiently drafted scientific peer review.

Why is there no scientist or researcher willing to undertake an independent scientific peer review? It begs the million dollar question - is the air purification industry one big hype? Or do the scientists view it a futile task equivalent to seeking the Holy Grail – truth that cannot be proven? It is a fact that, we have trouble even finding a single comprehensive autonomous air purifier review.

Riveting and thought-provoking questions these are, driving us to intense enquiry with our 5-Key Factors Model. Our despatch, to several air purifier manufacturers, of a detailed survey based on our model met with muted response. But this only encourages us to delve deeper.

To recap, the Air Purifier Review - 5 Key Factors Model is as follows:

(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 explained in detail in separate Ezine articles which you can gain access to via the widget on our blog. Many thousands of our readers have also published our Ezine articles for their own subscriber base. If you have not read or published the full set of 5, you are welcomed to.

Also, please sign up at our blog as well as we will shortly launch our initial product review utilising the Air Purifier Review - 5 Key Factors Model.