This is obviously an very emotional issue with you, and I'm not sure anything would convince you that this is safe. You might try reading the info on the Plasmacluster site, and try searching the web for more information. You've obviously not done your research. I don't really want to get into a dogfight, but I feel I must correct some of your misconceptions. I am an electrical engineer so I do know something about physics and electronics.

1. A plasma is a neutral cloud of ions, as positive and negative charges are equally balanced. As in math, a plus one and a minus one equals zero. There are ions present, but their net charge is zero. Check out the definition of a plasma in an encyclopedia.

2. No device sold in Canada can exceed an ozone output of more than 0.05 ppm, or 50 parts per billion. I believe that the Plasmacluster is the only electronic air cleaning product to pass muster under those limits.

3. Health Canada, which I believe is their equivalent of the FDA did an evaluation of the Plasmacluster as a method of controlling the flu during a pandemic. Their tests show ozone levels of <10 parts per billion.

4.The Plasmacluster does destroy airborne pathogens. It's well documented if you are willing to do a little research. The Plasmacluster cracks water molecules into H+ and O2- ions. The ions attaching themselves to airborne particles scavenge Hydrogen from it, and in the process turn back into water.

5. The Plasmacluster has the recommendation of several groups such as the Asthma Society of Canada, for the alleviation of asthma symptoms. Again, easily verified through a little web searching.

6. I've been running a Plasmacluster (in the plasma, not ion mode) next to a wall in my house for almost two years and there is no more dust on that section of wall than anywhere else in the house.

 

SciFi,

You appear to be very well educated on the topic, and obviously your advanced degrees will give you added insight here, so hopefully you can help my little pea brain understand some of the questions I have.

The advertsing literature for the Sharp Plasmacluser per your description states that the device produces "one part per billion" but here you are saying that Health Canada tested them at "10 parts per billion." 10 parts per billion increases of ozone have been shown to significantly increase school absenteeism. There are also studies that show increases as small as 10 parts per billion increase mortality rates in cities. These are studies on "outdoor" air, not "indoor." I don't think there have been any studies yet that actually look at effects of small increases in ozone against ambient background, but I'm going to assume that 10 parts per billion increase would have similar effects indoor or out.

Hopefully, you will have an answer to this question - what test is used to measure the Sharp Plasmacluster's ozone production. Is it UL 867 section 37? If it is, aren't you concerned about the arbitrary "halving" of the ozone number at the conclusion of the test? I'm not a scientist and I'm not an engineer, but from what I've read the ozone test number of the UL test is cut in half for no logical reason. This would indicate that a device that is "acceptable" by Health Canada's 50 parts per billion could actually create 100 parts per billion before it fails the test. 50 parts per billion is a significant increase in ozone. So is 100 parts per billion. And so is 20 parts per billion if you are an asthmatic or have a compromised immune system, which is what the number should actually be if it isn't halved per the UL test.

I have a great deal of respect for Health Canada because they were one of the driving forces in educating consumers about ozone producing air purifers. My understanding is that Health Canada has also gone on record to state that they believe 50 parts per billion is too high as an "acceptable" level. I was also under the impression that Health Canada wasn't happy with some aspects of the currently available ozone testing protocols because they didn't believe they accurately present an air purifers true ozone production. (The American Lung Association went on record stating firmly that they believe that NO amount of ozone should be produced by air purifers, not even very small amounts like 10 or 20 parts per billion.)

Regarding the Asthma Society of Canada recommending the Sharp Plasmacluster - is this a "paid" endorsement? And what type of tests did they run to assertain effectiveness and safety? I ask because here in America the Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America (AAFA) slapped its endorsement seal on two of the worst air purifiers on the market. When Consumer Reports investigated the situation they found that the two companies that made the air purifiers had paid for the endorsement seal as a marketing tool. This pretty much destroyed AAFA's reputation as a reliable source of asthma info for many of us.

And lastly, I'm curious that you state there is no dust accumulating on your walls. If the Plasmacluster is not attaching particles to surfaces - why does Toyota advise consumers to wipe the vent with a damp cloth to clean it? Don't all ionizers attach particles to surfaces?

I'd be happy to have you convince me that the Plasmacluster is a safe and healthy device, but I honestly don't see how one ionizers technology can be significantly different from another's - and plain and simple ionizers are NOT recommended for asthmatics. HEPA is.

 

Marianne,

Health Canada found that the Plasmacluster put out less than (<) 10 ppb ozone. Since they didn't give a specific lower number, I would assume that 10 ppb was as low as they could measure. The report was a technology assessment of various air filtration devices proposed to slow down the spread of airborne diseases. The Plasmacluster was the only ionizer evaluated. The report is at www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/reviews/pdf/rev_act_110105.pdf.

I'm not familiar with UL 867, so I can't comment on how the standard derives the numbers. Consumer reports uses it as a standard, and they have not commented on it as I would expect them to if they found it deficient.

There appears to be no cut-off level for ozone exposure, which is why the American Lung Association recommends no ozone. There is a linear relationship, in that half the ozone concentration, causes a corresponding reduction in ozone related illnesses. It seems to me that a reasonable level would be no higher than that generated by sunlight in clean air.

If the Asthma Society of Canada was paid for their endorsement, then I would agree that their endorsement is valueless.

My walls are clean, but I have to admit that I have an electrostatic precipitator in my central air, and the Plasmacluster contains both a HEPA filter, and a activated charcoal filter. The air flowing through the house and up the walls from the Plasmacluster is very clean, though it should entrap nearby dust. The plasma mode is the default, but you can switch it to the negative ion mode, which would probably precipitate dust on the wall. The manual mentions the possibility of this too. If the distribution of negative and positive ions is initially not even, then there would be a tendency to trap dust on nearby, but not distant surfaces.

Most ionizers on the market are unipolar, in that they generate ions of only one charge. The plasmacluster is a bipolar ionizer, generating equal numbers of positive and negative ions. They also differ in what they're ionizing, air in the first case, which is where the ozone comes from. The Plasmacluster ionizes water molecules, not air.

I personally feel the Plasmacluster is safe, but that's my personal feeling. I can't back that up with data. On the other hand, I haven't found anything credible to indicate that it's unsafe.

 

Not to be off topic but you guys have me worrying about my Oreck air purifier with ionizer! I guess I should shut off the ionizer feature :-P ... keep the info coming, this is very informative.

 

That's pretty much the never ending issue with these discussions, no one has concrete data, just armfuls of questionable studies and varied opinions.

The problem with studies is you can use the results to say just about anything. Marianne references a study that claims that an extra 10ppb increases school absentism. The two may typically rise together, but that does not say they are necessarily related. Ozone typically increases on sunny warm days. Perhaps it is sunny warm days that increase school absentism. Perhaps it's the interaction with ozone and other polutants. Is 20ppb of ozone as bad for you at the North Pole as it would be in downtown Los Angeles? The Lung Association knows lots of ozone is bad, but doesn't know what is a reasonably safe level for every person under every situation. In the absence of definitive knowledge, picking "none" is the safe non commital view with a shrug of the shoulders. Don't use ionizers, don't eat meat, go peanut free, don't drink the water, try not to breath when you're outside, eat lots of fish except only once a month because of mercury and you'll live to be 101.
Are extra traffic lights that save 1 person dying every 2 years from traffic accidents worth it if the extra pollution generated by all the cars stopping and idling kills 2 people through respirtory desease? All questions that simply can't be quantified to a simple Good or Bad answer.
Probably the placebo affect is just as powerful as anything else. If you think it works, it probably will, if you think its bad you'll probably cough up a lung with the first ion. Understand the info, understand the limitations of the info, understand that everyone else's opinion is biased in some way because they simply aren't you, then make a choice that works for you. Er, ummm, what was I talking about again? I think I ate a mad cow burger...

 

Agreed.

 

SciFi, did you read this study before you posted the link? There was NO praise for the Plasmacluster, as a matter of fact... they were rather harsh in their criticism.





The study also noted that there was NO supporting evidence of any of Sharp's claims about the Plasmacluster... only company literature. All in all, the whole thing actually looked very dubious - as though someone with a personal agenda tried to force the Plasmacluster into Health Canada's study. Perhaps I'm reading into things, but the inclusion of the Plasmacluster sure doesn't look like anything "studied" here... just dismissed.

To be honest, nothing about that "study" was very impressive. It just looked like some lazy people read a few CDC studies and cut-and-pasted for the most part, and never gained a substantial knowledge of the topic in the process.

 

LOL you made me spew coffee on my computer monitor

 

I did read the study and I can't quite figure out how you came to your interpretation. This is from p.22 of the study, "Because influenza is primarily acquired by large droplets and direct and indirect contact with an infectious person, any in-room air cleaner will have little benefit in controlling and preventing its spread." There was no criticism of either the Plasmacluster or any other air cleaner for that matter. It is not the place of a scientific study to either praise or condemn the subject of inquiry, and this report did neither. As Joe Friday would say, "just the facts maam!" The reader is expected to draw their conclusions from the facts without prejudice. You read a "harsh criticism" that wasn't there. I originally cited that report as one that did test the ozone level of the unit, which you read as 10 ppb, although it said "less" than 10 ppb.

I would also suggest that you read the Plasmacluster literature, even if you think it is company propaganda. In their literature they plainly spell out that it is ineffective against surface contamination, and large airborne particles (droplets). That is the reason why it and the other non-ionizing in-room air cleaners were dropped from the study.

Again they didn't say that. What they did say was that they found one, published, peer-reviewed report "to date." I found several reports while back, mostly published in Japan and I think Korea. I should also point out that "peer reviewed reports" are held to highest scientific standards. I doubt that Consumer Reports would pass as published.

 

Just the facts? The quote I posted was taken directly from the "study." It stated the plasmacluster was useless. In theory this was a "study" to look at air cleaners effectiveness against influenza. It said the plasmacluster was ineffective against flu. To be honest, this study stinks to high heaven. There was NO logical reason for the plasmacluster to even be included. The authors noted there was NO supporting evidence of the plasmacluster's claims, just company propoganda literature. Someone somewhere tried got the plasmacluster forced into this study for a kickback, not for the good of Canada. The whole thing was rediculous. There was no reason for that thing to be included other than someone with a personal agenda wanted it there. The fact that you quoted it having been included makes me question whether the company then used their inclusion directly in their marketing literature. I recall hearing boasts that the plasmacluster was the ONLY ionizer in the study. This would indicate there was something "special" about it, not that it was deemed ineffective. It's also illogical to link the plasmacluster used in the study to the one in the Camry hybrid. The plasmacluster used in the study is a hybrid device. The one in the Camry hybrid is ONLY an ionizer device. Just because they share a common name - they are NOT similar machines.