Compare air cleaning technologies
The problems shared by ALL filter-based air purifiers
|
|
All traditional filter-based air purifiers (including HEPA, Electrostatic, UVC and PCO) share the same basic failings: they only filter out some types of pollutant, not all, and they only clean the air that passes directly through them:
- Filter-based technologies only reach their maximum level of pollution reduction (typically circa 50% - Novoselac & Siegel 2009) after more than an hour.
- Filters remove particles from the air passing through the filter but the filtered air they emit is immediately re-contaminated by mixing.
- Stratification (caused by warm air rising) and eddies (circling air), and the fact that existing air is constantly being replaced by new air from outside, means that much of the air in a room will never even pass through the filter. This effect is often compounded by a lack of filter 'suction' compared to room size.
- Filters typically only capture particulates, not gaseous pollution.
- As filters don't produce a hydroxyl cascade, they don't decontaminate surfaces or neutralise viruses, bacteria, mould or pollens within the room.
- While larger, more powerful, noisier fans can filter more air, in practical terms they can never overcome these failings.
Compare air cleaning technologies
Feature |
Radiant UVC |
UVC Filter |
Ioniser |
PCO / PECO Filter |
HEPA Filter |
Airora |
Works safely 24/7 with people present |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Destroys all types of harmful virus, bacteria and mould |
Y until people return |
Only within the device |
N |
Only within the device |
N |
Y |
Creates an active person to person infection barrier |
People cannot be present |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Reduces active airborne viruses, bacteria and moulds throughout an indoor space (Airora is 1000+ times more efective than any filter) |
Y until people return |
N |
Measured at 99.9999% in 5 minutes |
|||
Destroys harmful viruses, mould, and bacteria on all exposed surfaces throughout a room |
Y if in direct line of sight |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Cleanses all the air and exposed surfaces in an indoor space, not just the air that passes through the device |
NA |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Breaks down and removes harmful gaseous pollution (VOC’s, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, ammonia etc.) throughout a room |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Neutralises all common allergens and lung irritants, such as pollens, spores, pet dander, cat saliva and house dust mite excretions throughout a room |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Removes all types of Odour throughout a room |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Breaks down and removes dangerous ultra-fine particles throughout a room |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Controls the level of indoor ozone, reducing it to below international safety standards |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Whisper Quiet (Bedroom friendly!) |
NA |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Low energy use |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
Notes:
- Unlike Hydroxyls, UVC takes some time to work, and there is much scientific debate about 'how long' and thus how fast the air can flow until they become ineffective. The EPA says: "typical UVGI cleaners used in homes have limited effectiveness in killing bacteria and molds"
- Air ionisers only create abundant ions close to the device, not throughout the entire room. Local to the device, particulates, including microbes, may be charged and then adhere to nearby surfaces (is that a good thing?), but they will easily be disturbed and made airborne again.
- The latest research by Boeing demonstrated that across a 'real' environment the intensity of ions created by air ionisers was insufficient to have any material biocidal effect.
Airora vs Filters
Based on research by the UK Government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and others, Airora's technology is 1000+ times more effective, and far faster, than that of any in-room air filter.
That might seem surprising given that filters often claim reductions of 99.95% or even greater. However, such claims are for the removal of germs between the input and output of the device, not for the removal of germs throughout a room. Novoselac & Siegel 2009 suggest that circa 50%, rather than 99.95%, would be more accurate measured across a whole room!
Why the huge difference between SAGE's conclusions and the claims of filter manufacturers?
The reason is simple; as the air in a room is constantly changing, and as by no means all of the air in the room at any one time will have passed through the filter, the efficiency of the filter itself has little bearing on the ability of a filter device to clean all of the air throughout a room.
As Airora cleanses the air insitu, and works by molecular diffusion, it has none of the constraints that filters suffer from.
Public Health England measured Airora achieving a 99.9999% reduction in hard to kill airborne MS-2 virus in five minutes!
