Incredibly, it's true. The multibillion-dollar worldwide market of ionic air purifiers is plagued by a severe lack of well-organized, well-recorded scientific research!

It's odd since if the science behind ionic air purifiers is sound, I'd expect any company selling the product to make a big deal about it. I'd expect them to talk about the usefulness and effectiveness of their unique technology in the presentation. They should go on and on about how safe their technology is, and how it kills bacteria but is completely harmless to humans. My hopes were dashed, and I'm disappointed.

The truth is that despite my best efforts, I have been unable to locate any scientific articles that substantiate the claims made for the currently available ionic air purifiers. For some reason, ionic air purifier manufacturers don't bother to include scientific articles on their websites. There is no differentiation made between the individual brands' safety, efficacy, or effectiveness when they exist. While some of the references are listed, they aren't detailed enough for serious buyers of this specific air purifier to research. Almost as if the makers of things don't expect anybody to question or investigate them!

Finding relevant scientific research articles online is difficult since they tend to be pricey and priced on an article-by-article basis, which makes them difficult to obtain. It seems to me that I would be ready to invest in the hundreds and maybe thousands of technical articles listed on certain scientific journal websites if I were an entrepreneur wanting to develop a new air purifier. However, I'm just interested in finding a product that is reliable and safe to purchase for my usage!

Unfortunately, the scientific community is likewise motivated by profit, which means important research isn't openly accessible to everybody with an interest or a desire to know about it.

My hunt for the optimal air purifier continues, even though my brain is still spinning from the onslaught of confused and inconclusive online data:

First and foremost, Simon Air Quality air purifiers must be safe for people to use.

Based on scientific studies, ionic air purifier technology is effective in the laboratory.

In the house, workplace, industry, school, etc., the ionic air purifier technology has been effectively transferred from the laboratory into an appliance that delivers the same benefits.

I believe that ionic air purifiers are safer than other types of air purifiers, and this is the focus of this post. Something great at eradicating microorganisms yet is so potent that it destroys human health serves no purpose. The answers to these two questions are critical:

Can human tissue be harmed by the purportedly helpful active agents of ionic air purifier technologies? Positive ions, negative ions, or whatever other name you'd want to give them (such as those created by Sharp's patent-pending plasmacluster ions) are completely harmless.

The ionic air purifier technology's unintentional byproducts may cause injury to human tissue. Reactive byproducts like ozone and nitric oxides, which are toxic in high quantities, may also be produced during the process.

If you are concerned about the safety of negative ions, plasma clusters, and other forms of radiation that are not harmful to humans, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim on the internet. Many studies have shown that these active compounds are useful in eliminating microorganisms, a topic I shall discuss in a subsequent post. I'm worried that the active substances' proclaimed potency would have the same effect on human tissue, which is very delicate. When millions of dollars are spent each year by customers on ionic air purifiers, why is there a lack of scientific data?

My quest for answers on the Internet was unproductive, so I contacted the producers of ionic air purifiers! According to a few inquiries, producers do not want to make the scientific facts public since they fear the fury of animal compassion organizations! It's hard to tell whether this is a genuine worry or if the company is trying to cover up an unpleasant fact.

When I typed "animal testing" into Google, I was instantly confronted with the enormous debate about the use of animals in evaluating the safety of items intended for human use. Examples include Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK which undertakes safety testing on a wide range of industrial and consumer goods. Animal welfare organizations and testing businesses are still at odds to this day. It's understandable that ionic air purifier producers, who are likely to use comparable testing firms to perform safety checks, would want to keep things under wraps.

I was able to have a better understanding of the debate around animal experimentation thanks to a random online search result. Ionic air purifier technology has nothing to do with the safety testing listed on the company's website. Furniture and other home fixtures are sprayed with liquid. When sunlight falls on the liquid, hydroxyl radicals and superoxide ions are released into the air, eliminating any germs such as bacteria, viruses, and mold that may be present, according to an explanation of one of the advantages.

A series of safety studies on mice, guinea pigs, and rabbits were conducted to ensure that the liquid was not harmful to people (please be warned that you may find the next paragraph offensive and you may wish to skip to the next paragraph).

Acute oral toxicity was tested by feeding the liquid to mice orally.

The liquid was applied to rabbit skin that had been intentionally rubbed raw to check for any primary skin irritation.

guinea pigs were used to test for skin sensitivity to the liquid.

Salmonella bacteria were inoculated with the liquid to see whether it mutated the nuclei, which might indicate the liquid's capacity to induce cancer.

Rather dreadful and nasty content! Even if the OECD Guidelines for Chemical Testing were followed, I still have this impression notwithstanding the findings to the contrary. As an animal advocate, I can begin to understand the camp's concerns about this kind of safety testing. Fortunately, this liquid solution was determined to be safe for all animals, even salmonella germs.

In light of this quick introduction to animal testing, makers of ionic air purifiers abstain from promoting or even making mention of such experiments when they are carried out

Despite the producers' concerns, my online searches have yielded footnotes for certain products that suggest that safety testing has been undertaken on the active ingredients. I'd be on the lookout for footnotes like these when hunting for an ionic air purifier. As far as I can tell, no animals were injured by the purifier or it wouldn't be available to humans. Another factor that matters to me is whether or not the safety testing was done by GLP (Good Laboratory Practice), an international standard established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to recognize organizations that follow rigorous scientific testing protocols.

Ultimately, does this suggest that ionic air purifiers do not undergo any safety testing for the impacts of active agents on humans? If you think about it, it's a lot less than you may imagine. Because they bought one and used it, everyone in the world becomes a beta tester!

Unfortunately, manufacturers' websites will only include positive endorsements of the purifier's advantages. While beneficial, cherry-picked testimonials imply that only the best things are said about a company. A GLP laboratory would have had to conduct rigorous testing on the ionic air purifier's users to prove that the active compounds do not damage human tissue when used in this manner.

This seems to be a problem that will never be fixed. However, the fact that many other consumer items are promoted in this way and presumed safe unless proved otherwise provides some solace to me.

Another time, in another essay, I'll go into the second facet of safety I'm concerned about. Ionic air purifiers may potentially injure human tissue via their possible byproducts, both intentional and unintentional.