|

Ionic Air Purifiers may actually Increase Particle Concentrations

Byoliveridley

Take that, Sharper Image, your air purifiers that you waste tons of paper sending me monthly catalogs for don’t work. The ones that use ozone react with organic compounds in the air, especially your fragrances in cleaning products, air fresheners and perfumes to make fine particles in that crucial 0.1-1 um size range that your lungs don’t clear very effectively.

Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, especially with other indoor pollutants. But I always thought these air purifiers were a scam, I am glad somebody actually got the NSF to fund this study and get some proof!

Kinetic Analysis of Competition between Aerosol Particle Removal and Generation by Ionization Air Purifiers

Kinetic Analysis of Competition between Aerosol Particle Removal and Generation by Ionization Air Purifiers

Ahmad Alshawa, Ashley R. Russell, and Sergey A. Nizkorodov*

Department of Chemistry, University of California, Irvine, California 92697-2025

Abstract:

Ionization air purifiers are increasingly used to remove aerosol particles from indoor air. However, certain ionization air purifiers also emit ozone. Reactions between the emitted ozone and unsaturated volatile organic compounds (VOC) commonly found in indoor air produce additional respirable aerosol particles in the ultrafine (This model predicts that certain widely used ionization air purifiers may actually increase the mass concentration of fine and ultrafine particulates in the presence of common unsaturated VOC, such as limonene contained in many household cleaning products. This prediction is supported by an explicit observation of ultrafine particle nucleation events caused by the addition of D-limonene to a ventilated office room equipped with a common ionization air purifier.

Similar Posts

  • |

    The oceans cannot absorb infinite amounts of CO2

    Byoliveridley

    While North Carolina and most of the South of the US reels under drought like conditions and the local newspaper is filled with all kinds of stories about water shortages, this one sentence, steeped in science-speak has caught the attention of climate scientists and general climate change worriers.

    The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (P =0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions.

    Huh? What they’re saying is that while increasing CO2 emissions are rightfully blamed for the bulk of global warming, a not insignificant (18% to be precise) percentage can be linked to the fact that the oceans just are not absorbing CO2 at the rate that they used to. The reasons are yet unclear, but the trend can definitely be seen.

    OceanUptake.jpg

    The noise in the data is clear indication that there are many natural factors that greatly influence this uptake. But recent observational studies (not a free paper, look up reference 2, so I won’t link to it) in the North Atlantic are backing up this trend.

    The reasons could be as simple as decreasing solubility with increasing temperature, or with increasing ocean acidity, who knows. But it points in the general direction of our climate models being in danger of underestimating climate change effects.

    What does this mean for climate research? Well, there was a really interesting paper out in Science today (Reference 3, not free!) talking about the uncertainties in climate change estimates. The best guess (95% confidence interval) is between 2 and 4.5 degrees Celsius rise in temperature with doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But the probability graph around this estimate is not symmetrical, it has a long tail towards the right (>4.5 degrees). The paper discusses why this uncertainty is not related to model limitations, but is an inherent feature of the way climate change processes work, through non-linear feedbacks and multiplying processes.

    What these observations tell us is that uncertainty in climate estimates is not a bug, it’s a feature and will never go away. Also, all the uncertainty is on the wrong side, meaning we’re always in danger of underestimating climate change. There goes one more excuse for not tackling climate change with all the urgency it deserves.

    We will never predict how bad it will be, we only know it will be pretty bad, possibly worse.

    1) Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks — Canadell et al., 10.1073/pnas.0702737104 — Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2) Schuster, U., and A. J. Watson (2007), A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North Atlantic, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2006JC003941, in press.

    3) Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker (26 October 2007) Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?Science 318 (5850), 629. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1144735]

  • | |

    Water Find to End Darfur War – Well, not so fast!

    Byoliveridley

    Beware the dangers of the overhyped press release machine (or sciencedaily, pick your poison). All Farouk El-Baz saw when he did the radar study was a giant depression. It is TBD whether there’s water in them thar holes!’

    BBC NEWS | Africa | Ancient Darfur lake is dried up

    Alain Gachet, who used satellite images and radar in his research, said the area received too little rain and had the wrong rock types for water storage. But the French geologist said there was enough water elsewhere in Darfur to end the fighting and rebuild the economy.

    On Wednesday, Boston Universitys Farouk El-Baz said he had received the backing of Sudans government to begin drilling for water in the newly-discovered lake, in North Darfur.

    No wonder they say that water is the 21st century oil. This guy’s going to be drilling for water (also known as well digging!).

  • British Columbia Introduces a Carbon Tax

    Byoliveridley

    Wow, I am already proud of my future destination, a carbon tax, no less. One that will start off at $10 per tonne of carbon (2.4c per litre of gasoline, or about 9c a gallon) and rise by a factor of three in a few years…

    VICTORIA – Finance Minister Carole Taylor introduced an escalating carbon tax on most fossil fuels Tuesday, one she says recycles revenues back to taxpayers and businesses and is designed to ignite an environmental social movement in British Columbia and across Canada to fight climate change.And she’s handing every British Columbian $100 in June as seed money to get them thinking green.

    The Canadian Press: BC introduces carbon tax, but off-sets increased fuel costs with tax cuts

    The carbon tax advocacy center sets the required starter tax as 10c a gallon, BTW, so this measure by BC is no joke, it’s a serious effort to rein in CO2 emissions from the province. Carbon taxes are in general regressive as they are flat taxes, so the poor pay the same as the rich, but obviously will suffer more. So, what is the BC government doing to ensure that the poor don’t suffer?

    The carbon tax revenue, estimated to hit $1.8 billion over three years, will be returned to taxpayers through personal income tax and business tax cuts, she said.The government will introduce legislation that requires it to table an annual plan that shows how the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers, Taylor said

    Good words. But Taylor needs to realize that in the absence of well designed tax offsets, the people and businesses of BC will be at a temporary competitive disadvantage. It’s tricky to be an early adopter, but I am optimistic that BC will be the better for it.

    Wonderful, now the rest of Canada (and the US) needs to follow suit. And, I look forward to blogging about Canada already, exciting!

    Thanks of course to the grist for alerting me…

    Update: An economist allays my regressivity and harm to business fears…

    Blogged with Flock

    Tags: ,

  • Nissan goes electric

    Byoliveridley

    Nissan Shows Off Its Electric Car, the Leaf – NYTimes.com

    What, no Canada? But still,  an electric hatchback, hits all my buttons and dings all my dongs! I only hope to keep my current, explosion powered hatchback long enough to not buy one ever again. Price, of course, will be a consideration. The good news is that Nissan is considering leasing the battery instead of people having to buy it up front, a great idea, not as great as the battery instant replace model from Shai Agassi and Better Place, but one that lessens the battery buying burden.

    The future is electric.

  • Energy efficiency, electricity, power plants

    Byoliveridley

    Suppose I paid you for every pound of pollution you generated and punished you for every pound you reduced. You would probably spend most of your time trying to figure out how to generate more pollution. And suppose that if you generated enough pollution, I had to pay you to build a new plant, no matter what the cost, and no matter how much cheaper it might be to not pollute in the first place.

    Well, that’s pretty much how we have run the U.S. electric grid for nearly a century. The more electricity a utility sells, the more money it makes. If it’s able to boost electricity demand enough, the utility is allowed to build a new power plant with a guaranteed profit. The only way a typical utility can lose money is if demand drops. So the last thing most utilities want to do is seriously push strategies that save energy, strategies that do not pollute in the first place.

    Energy efficiency, electricity, power plants | Salon News

    There are some things you wish you could have written, and the first paragraph is one of those. Romm nails it. Clearly, the most efficient MW of electricity is the one that was never used. But unless utilities are paid to conserve, not paid to produce, they will always build, build build.

    Excellent summary of arguments he makes all the time over at the gristmill. Now to find out what BC does. Canada is one of the worst in terms of energy use per capita. Some of it can be linked to the cold climate, but Germany is plenty cold too, and uses a third less per person.

    This article compares BC and California and finds BCHydro lacking in its incentives to save. The key is “decoupling”

    Significantly, California adopted regulations so that utility company profits are not tied to how much electricity they sell. This is called “decoupling.”

    BC’s per capita energy consumption is 0.26, well below the Canadian average and on the decline as Canada as a whole is getting worse. But more can be done.

    The key value judgment to be made here is that reducing energy use benefits all of us. The system should be set up in such a way that it benefits the utility as well. This way, they’re on the same side.

    Also, while a carbon tax is all well and good, it is not sufficient. Energy efficiency requires investment up front and people would rather pay 50 bucks a year in carbon tax than pay 300 bucks up front to insulate their homes better and save a 100 bucks a year in energy costs. Rebates only work if you have money up front. Giving people a $100 check is nice, but only if they spend it on improving energy efficiency. But, it’sjust money and we all know that money gets spent (beer, beer beer!) Subsidies work better as they reduce the cost of things. I would rather buy 10 compact fluorescent lamps for a buck each with the government chipping in the extra 10 bucks than get it back at the end of the year as a rebate, or pay 20c extra per incandescent lamp as a carbon tax.

    All rambling aside, a really good article on the value of energy efficiency.

  • |

    Sea Turtle News o' the day – Global warming edition

    Byoliveridley

    ScienceDaily: Scientists Warn Of Climate Change Risk To Marine Turtles

    North American marine turtles are at risk if global warming occurs at predicted levels, according to scientists from the University of Exeter. An increase in temperatures of just one degree Celsius could completely eliminate the birth of male turtles from some beaches. A rise of three degrees Celsius would lead to extreme levels of infant mortality and declines in nesting beaches across the USA.

    Here’s the paper.

    Like a lot of other reptiles, the sex of the hatchling is dependent on nest temperature. Warmer temperatures make female turtles (my mnemonic was hot females!), and even warmer temperatures just kill the eggs. But, I wonder if the turtles would adapt by nesting a little earlier. I don’t think it is yet clear when turtles decide to nest. If it is based on sea temperature, then they would eventually figure it out. This paper from 2004 appears to conclude that loggerheads in Florida do nest earlier than before, so there is hope.

    John F. Weishampel, Dean A. Bagley, Llewellyn M. Ehrhart (2004) Earlier nesting by loggerhead sea turtles following sea surface warming Global Change Biology 10 (8), 1424–1427

    The onset of spring, noted by the timing of wildlife migratory and breeding behaviors, has been occurring earlier over the past few decades. Here, we examine 15 years of loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, nesting patterns along a 40.5 km beach on Florida’s Atlantic coast. This small section of beach is considered to be the most important nesting area for this threatened species in the western hemisphere. From 1989 to 2003, the annual number of nests fluctuated between 13 000 and 25 000 without a conspicuous trend; however, based on a regression analysis, the median nesting date became earlier by roughly 10 days. The Julian day of median nesting was significantly correlated with near-shore, May sea surface temperatures that warmed an average of 0.8°C over this period. This marine example from warm temperate/subtropical waters represents another response of nature to recent climate trends.

    So the truth lies somewhere between easy adaptation and giant swarms of frustrated female turtles!

7 Comments

  1. We seem to live in a world of dangers, and truthfully I’m not sure that we can ever truly eliminate most of them – or at least, when we do, we usually wind up creating a new one. There’s something about environmental theories and perhaps chaos theory. Everything seems to be interdependent, and so what we get when we seem to “advance” technologically is not truly “advancement” but rather simple “change.” We buy cell phones, in part so that we will be safer – if our car breaks down on the freeway, we aren’t completely isolated from the world. Then we hear that they cause accidents, and, perhaps even scarier, long term exposure to the speaker has been shown to cause tumors. We build a machine to make the air cleaner and it winds up creating dangerous particles that are too small for it to filter. We kill a deadly virus, but this causes viruses to mutate and become far more resistant. Are there any real “solutions”?

  2. Cheers for discussing together with us all. Your articles and reviews are really helping me to inquire about the facts about it online. I may need to follow this website. Thanks and well done again.

  3. With thanks for sharing together with all of us. Your guides are really helping me needed for the facts about it online. I must keep to this website. Thanks and well done again.

  4. With thanks for spreading together with me. Your article content are really helping me to gather the facts about it online. I got to keep to this website. Thanks and well done again.

  5. Bless you for spreading together with us all. Your articles and reviews are really helping me to get more the reality about it online. I should stick to this website. Thanks and well done again.

  6. Bless you for telling together with me. Your articles are really helping me getting the facts about it online. I have got to stick to this website. Thanks and well done again.

  7. Bless you for writing with us. Your web content are really helping me to acquire the facts about it online. I better follow this website. Thanks and well done again.

Comments are closed.