Airora
  • Home
  • Products
  • Applications
    • Your Home
    • Healthcare
    • Care Sector
    • Schools
    • Hospitality
    • Office & Retail
    • Veterinary
    • Everyone, Everywhere ...
  • The Science
    • Bringing the Outdoors Indoors
    • Imagined by NASA, Delivered by Airora
    • The Chemistry Behind Airora
    • Compare Technologies
    • Testing, Performance & Safety
  • Support
    • FAQs
    • About Us
    • Blog
    • Contact

Boeing's research shows that ionizer air cleaning simply doesn't work

10/1/2022

4 Comments

 
Picture
​Ionizer technology comes under a range of names: "ionizing air purifiers", "bi-polar ionization", "air ionizers", "ion generators" and "ionic air purifiers". Additionally, there are air purifiers called “electrostatic air purifiers" which work similarly to ionizers. Collectively, they are termed "ionizers".
​Ionizers make multiple claims about how well they will clean the air in your room, kill viruses and bacteria, prevent allergy symptoms, provide “freshness,” or eliminate odors. 
​In the past, these claims have been considered doubtful, not least because the ions have very limited range outside of the device, and have been subject to many different analyses / studies which have failed to justify those claims.
​Now, thanks to detailed testing by Boeing, at least one aspect of their performance is now clear, ionizers are ineffective against viruses, bacteria and mold.
​Boeing tested 'Needle Point Bi-Polar Ionization', as that version of the technology is licenced for aircraft, and the supplier had made strong claims of between 69% and 99% eradication of a range of airborne viruses and bacteria after 60 minutes, and also 'Corona Discharge Air Ionization'.
Air Ionization Disinfection - Huntsville Laboratory Testing  
The airvorne norovirus surrogate MS2 Bacteriophage showed no observable reduction  over a 60 minute interval. There were no observable surface reductions in Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, and Enterobacter cloacae over a 60 minute exposure duration. 
Air Ionization Disinfection – University of Arizona Laboratory Testing
​"Usually a 90% reduction is desired to be confident that a product is having any significant anti-microbial effect. Under the test conditions of this study none of the viruses achieved this level of reduction."
Air Ionization Disinfection – New 787-10 Ground Testing 
Escherichia coli and MS2 Bacteriophage reductions in 30-60 minutes of treatment were much lower than the desired 3 log10 (99.9%) cabin disinfection, indeed they were generally < 0.1 log10 with higher values attributed to either experimental error or high levels of ozone.
Boeing's Conclusions
Boeing conclude that its limited testing was unable to replicate supplier results in terms of antimicrobial effectiveness and that the systems were unable to properly deliver and maintain sufficiently high ion levels in the airplane. Similarly, laboratory-based tests did not show proper rates of disinfection, even with high ion concentrations. ​
4 Comments

SAGE Advice on Air Cleaners!

10/6/2021

0 Comments

 

The UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) 
​Advice on Virus Air Cleaners

Picture
​The UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has produced timely advice on the effectiveness and safety (or otherwise) of air cleaning technologies and devices in the context of fighting COVID-19.
​While the advice focusses on pre-Airora technologies, it is a valuable contribution as it brings together, in one place, the various scientific concerns that older technologies, including HEPA and similar filters, UV-C, Ionisers, PCO and PECO, plasma, electrostatic precipitation, UV-A & UV-B and chemical sprays, are really not up to the job.
SAGE review of pre-Airora technologies
UVA/UVB, ionisation, plasma, electrostatic precipitation and Far UV (222nm)
For these classes of device, SAGE is unequivocal, there is limited evidence of efficacy against the virus and / or significant concerns over toxicological risks during application. At the current time, from lack of detailed evidence (irrespective of the claims of the manufacturers) SAGE does not recommend using these device technologies in occupied rooms.

Fibrous filter based devices (HEPA and similar filters)
The report notes that such devices will remove (but only from the air flowing through the device, not from all of the air in the room) all particulate based contaminants down to ~0.3 micron including dust, soot and microorganisms including in respiratory aerosols.

However, they note potentially severe drawbacks / limitations, including:
  • Manufacturers usually rely on claims based on ‘single pass’ effectiveness (i.e., the proportion of pollutants removed as air passes through the filter), which SAGE notes does not represent a ‘real world’ setting. SAGE explains the many real-world variables which together make such single-pass measurements meaningless.
  • They don’t remove any gaseous pollutants.
  • While high flow rates (CADR) may be required, so as to clean as much air as possible, noise may be a concern with higher flow rate devices. 
  • Filters need regular replacement, especially in dirty environments. Poorly maintained filters may produce sensory irritation.
  • Higher energy use (thus cost + emissions) than some other systems due to pressure drop over filter. 
  • HEPA filter needs to be correctly mounted to avoid bypass.

Enclosed UV-C
  • Photoreactivation can occur for bacteria.
  • Effectiveness depends on device flow rate, contact time with UV lamps, design and positioning.
  • Fan noise may be a concern with higher flow rate devices. 
  • Effectiveness may depend on UV lamp quality.

To these points specifically raised by SAGE we would add that:
  • High flow rates, which will be necessary in many situations, mitigate against the necessary latency for the UV-C to be effective.
  • As for fibrous filters, manufacturers usually rely on claims based on ‘single pass’ effectiveness (i.e. the proportion of pollutants removed as air passes through the device), which does not represent a ‘real world’ setting.

Ionisers
  • No evidence specifically against viruses. Evidence for other microorganisms is mixed. A UK healthcare study showed benefits for Acinetobacter infection, but no impact on MRSA and a trial on TB transmission was inconclusive. 
  • Most products have little good evidence to support their effectiveness.
  • Charged particles can settle on room surfaces rather than being removed, potentially increasing surface contamination.
  • Ionisers are affected by environmental conditions.

PCO and PECO catalytic oxidation
  • Catalytic oxidation is a surface effect and hence the inactivation needs to take place inside the device.  (i.e. in effect the device acts as a filter, not across the whole room).
  • Unlikely to have benefits over UV-C unless there is a requirement to remove other pollutants at the same time. 

To these points specifically raised by SAGE we would add that:
  • As with ionisers, PCO / PECO are affected by environmental conditions.
  • As SAGE point out, these are in effect enclosed filters, and as such share many of the drawbacks of fibrous filter based devices, including reliance on meaningless ‘single pass’ effectiveness data.

UVA / UVB Lamps
  • UVA/UVB lamps in indoor settings will have minimal impacts.
  • Potential risks from exposure (e.g., high intensity tanning lights). 

Chemical spray (including bleach based, alcohol based, and glycol based substances dispersed into the air through the ventilation system or a standalone unit.)
  • Many of the potential compounds have health impacts and should not be used in occupied spaces for long durations. 
  • There is no evidence that triethelyne glycol, or other glycols, are effective against coronaviruses.
The Importance of good ventilation
SAGE, rightly, repeatedly emphasises the importance of good ventilation in dispersing, diluting, and removing airborne (but not surface borne) airborne pathogens.

However, while often beneficial, this is not always either practical nor sufficient, particularly in existing buildings, and so our recommendation is to address shortcomings in ventilation where practicable alongside implementing Airora’s uniquely effective decontamination technology. Indeed, Sage itself suggests that effectiveness of an in-air cleaning device (such as that provided by Airora) can be assigned an equivalent 'air change rate' to be used alongside physical  ventilation.

During the current emergency, building managers have, in response to such advice,  often increased air change rates above those normally required. However, increasing air change rates can also have negative impacts, such as noise, energy cost and emissions and, in some circumstances, drawing in pollution from outside. By employing Airora’s advanced technology, managers will be able to return air change rates from emergency to good levels.
Rating Airora's technology against SAGE’s efficacy and safety criteria
​As can be seen from the above summary, SAGE has little positive to say about pre-Airora air cleaning technologies, limiting their positive recommendations to ‘HEPA and UV-C type filters might help if – see long list of conditions!’.

Given the poor performance of pre-Airora technologies, let us now look at how Airora’s new technology meets those questions that SAGE poses when considering the ability of air cleaners to suppress airborne pathogens safely and effectively within a building:

Is there evidence that Airora is demonstrably effective against SARS-Cov-2?
Airora’s technology has been demonstrated to be highly effective against MS2 Coliphage, an accepted surrogate (as agreed by the CDC & EPA) for SARS-Cov-2. Indeed, the UK HPA Laboratory at Porton Down measured Airora’s technology achieving a Log 6 kill (99.9999%) of high concentration airborne MS2 in under 5 minutes.

Is there multiplicity of relevant, accurate and independent test data as to Airora’s efficacy, both in the laboratory and the ‘real world’?
Yes

Has Airora demonstrated that it does not generate secondary chemical products which lead to health effects such as respiratory or skin irritation?
Yes, uniquely amongst air cleaner technologies, Airora and its expert advisors have identified the entire inventory of secondary chemical products and can confirm that none are known to be hazardous.

Does Airora’s technology create unintended consequences, such as noise, changes in temperature or drafts? No, Airora is not a filter requiring a powerful fan, it disperses its active ingredients gently and quietly.

Can Airora’s technology mitigate short range person-to-person viral transmission?
Given the log 6 reduction of MS-2 achieved in minutes we expect so (and are working on testing to demonstrate this effect).

Is Airora’s technology sensitive to environmental conditions?
No, within normal ranges Airora’s performance is not sensitive to temperature or relative humidity.

Is Airora’s technology sensitive to ventilation rates, room size, room shape, device positioning within the space, air flow within the room etc.?
No, unlike filters of all types, Airora’s technology is not sensitive to air change rates of up to five per hour, an unusually high figure, nor is it sensitive to room shape nor air flow within the room because its active ingredients are not dispersed by air movement but by molecular diffusion. Device position within the space is also not generally critical. Room size is important in that rooms should be no larger, nor smaller, than that indicated in the individual Airora product specification.

Does any ozone produced by Airora remain below 0.2 ppm?
Yes. Airora both produces trace levels and breaks down ozone, preventing its build-up, ensuring that levels remain far below not just the 0.2ppm limit referred to by SAGE, but well below even the tightest regulation and / or recommendations (0.05ppm) worldwide.

Does any formaldehyde produced by Airora remain below 0.2 ppm?
Yes. Airora both produces trace levels and breaks down formaldehyde, preventing its build-up, ensuring that levels remain far below not just the 0.2ppm limit referred to by SAGE, but well below even the tightest regulation and / or recommendations (0.08ppm) worldwide.

Does Airora produce ultra-fine and nano particles?
Yes. Airora both produces and removes (vaporises) ultra-fine and nano particles and testing has shown that there is no build-up of ultra-fines.
​
Is there any UV-C ‘seepage’?
Our devices have been tested for UV-C leakage in accordance with BS EN ISO 15858:2016.
As can be seen from the above, Airora’s technology meets all of SAGE’s stated criteria / concerns, and we look forward to SAGE considering our technology when they next update their review!
0 Comments

Why you are much less likely to catch COVID-19 outdoors

30/10/2020

2 Comments

 
Picture
How Fresh Air Fights Infections such as Flu and Coronaviris
You might think that going outside in the cold makes you more likely to ‘catch a cold’. But in fact, colds, the flu and COVID-19 spread much more easily inside. Let us explain …

How are infections such as Flu and Coroanvirus spread?
Both flu (and the common cold) and Coronaviruses such as COVID-19 are caused by viruses, which are spread through exposure to respiratory secretions (i.e. an infected person’s sneezes or coughs). The virus can be spread through the air, personal contact (such as a handshake), or by touching contaminated objects.

How long do these viruses remain infectious?
Virus
Hard Surfaces (e.g. desk, door handle)
Hands
​
​Indoor Air
COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
Up to 72 hours
​Several hours
Up to 3 hours
​Colds
Up to 24 hours
More than an hour
Up to 45 minutes
Flu
Up to 24 hours
Up to 10 minutes
Several hours
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) (cold-like virus that can cause serious illness in children)
Up to 6 hours
Up to 30 minutes
Several hours
​Parainfluenza (causes croup)
​
Up to 10 hours
Up to 10 minutes
Transmission unlikely
​As you can see, these can  hang around indoors for up to 72 hours – and people can shed huge numbers of cold / flu viruses into the air which can in turn settle onto surfaces: 
Coughing 
Sneezing 
Talking / Singing 
Vomiting 
Shed by Diarrhea into the air  
3,000+
​3,000+
​1,000+
​1,000+
​20,000+

Nature’s outdoors remedy - Hydroxyls
However, outside, you’re much less likely to catch these viruses. That’s because Hydroxyl Radicals, which occur naturally and abundantly in the air outside, kill all human pathogens on contact, including cold and flu viruses.
Hydroxyl Radicals are commonly known as ‘Nature’s Detergent’, and we think they are pretty amazing!
Only Airora's technology creates the same remedy indoors, in both the air and on surfaces.
​
​
Learn more about hydroxyls >
2 Comments

Airora technology meets & exceeds indoor air quality safety (IAQ) standards

11/9/2020

2 Comments

 
Picture
Airora product development has continually focused on safety. In June 2020, the Airora Professional PAW100/500 product passed an IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) test at the UK's Building Research Establishment (BRE) with flying colours.

The IAQ test measured the amounts of some potentially harmful substances in the ambient air (representing a typical room) before and after using Airora Professional. 

Those substances were: CO (Carbon Monoxide), CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), NOx (Nitrogen Oxides), NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide), Ozone, PM1, PM2.5, PM10 particulates, Formaldehyde,  and VOCs (volatile organic compounds).

To pass the test, the air after using the Airora device could not exceed the IAQ guidelines for safe levels for any of these pollutants.  

The results demonstrated that Airora products meet IAQ standards across the board.

Moreover, the amounts of every substance measured were far smaller than the maximum safe levels. 

We're delighted to be able to confirm that Airora is a people-safe technology.

​For detailed results of our IAQ tests, please contact us.


We will soon be conducting efficacy testing of our new Airora products. Please follow us to stay informed.
2 Comments

    Author

    Dr Wyatt blogs on his lifetime's experience of Indoor Air Quality Issues.

    Archives

    January 2022
    June 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    March 2020
    November 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Allergens
    Allergic Diseases
    COVID 19
    Indoor Pollution
    Science
    Technology

    RSS Feed

Picture

PRODUCTS​
​

Tabletop Pyramid
Wall / Floor Mounted
Personal

​​ 
APPLICATIONS
​

Your Home
​Healthcare

Care Sector
Schools
​
   

​Hospitality
Office & Retail
Veterinary
Everyone, Everywhere
​​
COMPANY
​
​
About Us
Privacy Policy​
​Website Terms & Conditions​

​
​​SUPPORT

​FAQs
​Blog
Contact Us
Search​
​© Copyright 2022 | Hydroxyl Technologies Ltd.  (T/A Airora) | All Rights Reserved
  • Home
  • Products
  • Applications
    • Your Home
    • Healthcare
    • Care Sector
    • Schools
    • Hospitality
    • Office & Retail
    • Veterinary
    • Everyone, Everywhere ...
  • The Science
    • Bringing the Outdoors Indoors
    • Imagined by NASA, Delivered by Airora
    • The Chemistry Behind Airora
    • Compare Technologies
    • Testing, Performance & Safety
  • Support
    • FAQs
    • About Us
    • Blog
    • Contact