Talk:Air purifier

ABUSE

TO WHOMEVER CONTINUES TO POST FALSE INFORMATION UNDER REFERENCES: I am recommending this article for review and dispute resolution as your information in subjective and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enischuo (talk • contribs) 05:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with any of the references, discuss them on this page. If you simply delete all the references without comment it will be construed as vandalism Pontificalibus (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ionic air purifiers use photoelectric effect to charge dust particles and then use an electric field to remove them? I remember seeing a wikipedia article about those, but I don't know the name. - Omegatron 21:46, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• No they do not use photoelectric anything. They use a high voltage electrostatic charge to charge the dust particles. Michaeloqu (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tone

What do you think? Good enough to get rid of the ugly sign? NickelShoe 06:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, put it back if you disagree.NickelShoe 06:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sales Speak

The descriptions for the "Filter" are incomplete, and the descriptions of the other types of purifiers are misleading. Look to add detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enischuo (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hearing Loss

Regarding the claim of possible hearing loss- "However, the noise level of some air conditioners or air purifiers with their fans running on high speed for several hours a day may cause hearing loss[citation needed]"

According to http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm the NIOSH/CDC standards for noise exposure is 8 hours for 85DB with the safe exposure time being halfed for every 3db, up to 115db where the max exposure is 30 seconds (levels over 115b causing immediate or near immediate hearing loss) several other sources cite 70DB as the lowest noise level capable of causing hearing loss, but if the inverse of the half exposure time for every 3db is true, it would take 256 hours of continual exposure at 70DB to cause hearing loss, or 10 1/2 days, so basically if you never leave your house, and sleep in the room with the air purifier on 24 hours a day, this MIGHT be feasible, but is extremely unlikely, especially as it would be very difficult to sleep through 70db of noise, and most air purifiers are around 50-65 DB on high.

Would it be unreasonable to remove this apparently baseless claim from the article? N33pn33p (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed. Michaeloqu (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware of the following....

• Talk:Hand sanitizer#Please do not auto-direct the topic of....

--124.78.215.195 (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

This article seems to be outdated, and sparse. For example, a section could be made about where air purifiers have been used by governments, and studies into their effectiveness (though there seem to be very few of these, which is puzzling considering how much research has gone into chemical allergy relief). i.e. AustinAirs were used to clean up air in New York after 9/11 made it toxic.

Also, there's been controversy about the validity of CADR ratings and AHAM: [1]

Getting real information about air purifiers is frustratingly difficult. This small, high-priced industry is a true confusopoly - even though there are many valid technologies used in it, side effects are obscured and information is hidden. And it probably remains a small industry because of it... Esn (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide citations and add this to Consumer Concerns? DHR (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The efficiency of each air purifier should depend on the particular particles, such as dust,pollen,harmful gases,bacterias,in the particular applications,such as home-used,industry-used,workshop,office building,or hospital. And may you kindly show us directly that what kind of place should use what kind of air purifier accordingly. Thank you! We would like to check it out together, or we can communicate at our office site: http://www.filterkc.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.206.55.186 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Brand List

There is no Honeywell? It is like 50% of the air purifiers sold in my local walmart and amazon.com are Honeywell branded, especially hepa air purifiers. Just my impressions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.193.75 (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• You may have seen a different version of the page than I am seeing now, but the only reference to a brand I found is the picture of a Sharp unit. Perhaps you could improve tje article by adding a section that describes the market share, and primary emphasis or product type(s) for the top manufacturers. Michaeloqu (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Purification type: protein dessaturation

I have been using air purifiers that do not trap the allergens but rather destroy them by the means of a heat chamber which dessaturates proteins (as far as I know, most proteins - and that includes allergens - will be destroyed by high temperatures, often above 50°C (over time) and almost instantly if higher then ~100°C). I wonder if I am missing some technical nomenclature or it was completelly skipped in this section. I am aware that perhaps this should be considered Air sanitizers but then again, these "air purifiers" are not mentioned on that article either.

I don't want to make any kind of ad but I am also aware that such method/technology is currently trademarked for only one global company, would that be the reason it's not included? if so, why?

Reference: http://www.airfree.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.193.90.118 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would say Go For It, Be Bold and add the (sub)section yourself. You can include the company name and website in a numbered reference, so that it would appear at the bottom of the page along with the other references. Leave a message on my talk page if you want help or want me to create the numbered reference. Michaeloqu (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased references

The claim "of May 2009 [7][8] there was no more disputable concern" is backed by references to a website of a company selling air purifiers. This is hardly unbiased. Boris Bukh (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed "Photoplasma Technology"

I just removed the "Photoplasma Technology" entry in the Purifying techniques list: it was looking like an advertisement, was not encyclopedic, had no references whatsoever, and was badly written. Moreover the same exact text was added as a blatant advertisement on two other pages (Formaldehyde and Volatile Organic Compound). Antifumo (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

section: purifying techniques

"which are heated to 200 °C (392 °F). It is claimed that 99.9% of microbiological particles - bacteria, viruses, dust mite allergens, mold and fungus spores - are incinerated."

Question: is "incineration" a correct term? 200 celsius degrees seems pretty low compared to the temperature of burning (like burning natural gas, wood, a candle's flame, etc all well above 600 celsius degrees). I mean a heat decomposition (of organic material) could be more correct. incineration implies charring, burning, which would result in the output of smoke and carbondioxide and other oxides (in case thre is something in the air that can be burnt, as it passes through the incinerator), isnt it? also the Wiki article for incineration says, that incineration means combustion of the material to be incinerated. is there combustion at 200 cels degrees? of course thre are highly flammable materials that would ignite at even a lower temperature, but is this true for the common household dust, containing the aforementioned allergens? (See also:"Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into ash, flue gas, and heat. The ash is mostly formed by the inorganic constituents of the waste, and may take the form of solid lumps or particulates carried by the flue gas. The flue gases must be cleaned of gaseous and particulate pollutants before they are dispersed into the atmosphere. ") 176.63.176.112 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air purifier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502145330/http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html to http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150426065810/http://allergyclean.com/news/uvpcoformaldehyde.htm to http://allergyclean.com/news/uvpcoformaldehyde.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608003704/http://www.epa.gov/o3healthtraining/effects.html to http://www.epa.gov/o3healthtraining/effects.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air purifier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/6782/ESL-HH-00-05-15.pdf?sequence=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104211545/http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/house-domes/electron/cleaners-air-purificateurs-eng.php to http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/house-domes/electron/cleaners-air-purificateurs-eng.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528034821/http://homer.ornl.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-std-3020-yr.pdf to http://homer.ornl.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-std-3020-yr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Outdoor air purifier

Should air purifiers that are used outdoors to clean the air of particulates and nitrogen oxide also be descirbed in this article? Or is there another term used for them? Smog tower is too specific because they often are not in tower form. Discostu (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)