|

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

  • U.S. "compromises"

    Byoliveridley

    The head of the U.S. delegation — Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky — was booed Saturday afternoon when she announced that the United States was rejecting the plan as then written because they were “not prepared to accept this formulation.” She said developing countries needed to carry more of the responsibility. While rhetoric at such conferences is often just words, a short speech by a delegate from the small developing country of Papua New Guinea appeared to carry weight with the Americans. The delegate challenged the United States to “either lead, follow or get out of the way.”Just five minutes later, when it appeared the conference was on the brink of collapse, Dobriansky took to the floor again to announce the United States was willing to accept the arrangement. Applause erupted in the hall and a relative level of success for the conference appeared certain.

    U.S. agrees to Bali compromise – CNN.com

    Papua New Guinea, way to go!! Apparently, this administration can still “compromise”. Now the Bali talks are being called a success with all kinds of shenanigans happening on the last day. So, what did they compromise on?

    The EU wanted an agreement to require developed countries to cut their emissions by 25 to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. The United States opposes those targets, along with Japan and Canada.

    The latest draft of the agreement removes the specific figures and instead, in a footnote, references the scientific study that supports them.

    While the EU and the United States appeared to have ended their impasse, India had objections to other parts of the agreement, notably the contributions developed nations would make to help developing nations clean up their emissions problems. Talks were expected to continue for several more hours.

    So, no mandatory cuts on the table, they agreed to talk some more in 2 years time. So, who will it be in 2009? President Clinton/Obama sending Al Gore for talks, or President Giuliani/Huckabee/Romney further stonewalling. Apparently, this US election is going to be pretty important as well!

    So, what does Nobel price winner Rajendra Pachauri think?

    “I wouldn’t term that a failure at all,” Pachauri said. “I think what would be a failure is not to provide a strong road map by which the world can move on, and I think that road map has to be specified with or without numbers. If we can come up with numbers, that’s certainly substantial progress, and I hope that happens.”

    I disagree. This is a numbers game. The damage caused by CO2 in the atmosphere is non-linearly proportional to the the amount in the atmosphere. The more you cut, the less damage you will cause later. At some number, the emission cuts may affect the lifestyles of certain countries. But to say that you don’t need numbers for success is just diplomatese.

    Note that Japan and Canada opposed cuts as well, but thanks to the exalted world leader position of the US, they can get away with little scorn.

    Blogged with Flock

    Tags: ,

  • Canada's Budget – FAIL on Renewables

    Byoliveridley

    Canada's Conservative government released a federal budget last week that would kill off the country's main program for developing renewables and channel most of the money from a new “Green Infrastructure Fund” into carbon capture and storage CCS technology, or so-called “clean” coal.

    Of course, the carbon capture is not aimed at coal here specifically, but at the oil sands. More bad news –

    The new pro-coal budget effectively killed all support for the nation’s ecoENERGY Program for Renewable Energy (equivalent to America’s Production Tax Credit for renewables). The program was the nation’s main support mechanism for developing renewable energy. The Pembina Institute, a Canada-based sustainable energy think tank, reacts to the budget defeat:

    “The federal government’s failure to renew and expand this program has jeopardized at least 1,500 megawatts of “shovel read” wind energy projects across the country, while putting the brakes on billions of dollars of potential future investment.”

    The renewable energy industry had hoped for a five-year extension of the program in the budget, which would have spurred over $6 billion of private investment in the Canadian economy and created 8,000 jobs, according to the Institute.

    Note that this is not just the Conservatives. The Liberals are supporting this budget, and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has spoken glowingly about the oil sands industry.

    At this point, we do not control our own environmental future. The Conservatives are an Alberta centred party and their motivation is not surprising. The Liberals clearly want back in power and do not have the money to fight another election next month. Canadians seem to not favour the most logical option, a coalition government of the left leaning parties which make up a majority of seats and voting percentages in parliament, so the Liberals have to support the Conservative budget or face an election soon.

    With Ignatieff leading the Liberals, they know that all they need a little time to get money and reverse their losses from the previous election. His personal popularity advantage over previous Liberal leader Stephane Dion will most probably lead to better election results, especially if the Canadian economy continues to tank. A Liberal budget would have not killed the renewables, but would have not done anything to make the oil sands projects pay for all their externalities either.

    With the two main parties objectively in favour of unproven boondoggles and greenwashing, only firm decisive action by the US administration to institute some kind of carbon controls will change the game in Canada. My fear is that by killing money support at a critical time, you kill the renewables industry and disperse its people elsewhere, and no reversing course in 3 years will get those people and companies back.

  • | | |

    The real terrorist: Pollution

    Byoliveridley

    It is true. A staggering number of people die every year due to lack of access to clean water, air or food. Aggregate statistics like these are a good way to summarize the humongous nature of the problem. While reams and reams of coverage and attention are focused on “terrorists”, people all around the world die of much more mundane causes such as bacteria in water, smog, poverty, starvation, malnourishment, etc.

    ScienceDaily: Pollution Causes 40 Percent Of Deaths Worldwide, Study Finds

    About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, concludes a Cornell researcher. Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes behind the rapid increase in human diseases, which the World Health Organization has recently reported. Both factors contribute to the malnourishment and disease susceptibility of 3.7 billion people, he says.

  • Lobbyist, Fed Lawyer Share Vacation Home

    Byoliveridley

    Plutocrat, meet protectionist!
    Lobbyist, Fed Lawyer Share Vacation Home | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited

    Nine months before agreeing to let ConocoPhillips delay a half-billion-dollar pollution cleanup, the government’s top environmental prosecutor bought a $1 million vacation home with the company’s top lobbyist.

    Also in on the Kiawah Island, S.C., house deal was former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles, the highest-ranking Bush administration official targeted for criminal prosecution in the Jack Abramoff corruption probe.

    Just before resigning last month, Assistant Attorney General Sue Ellen Wooldridge signed two proposed consent decrees with ConocoPhillips: one giving the company as much as two to three more years to install $525 million in pollution controls at nine refineries and the other dealing with a Superfund toxic waste cleanup.

    I am slowly coming to the realization that the words democracy and accountability have no meaning whatsoever in the good ol’ US of A. Remember this the next time you hear a lecture from your usual American diplomat/administration lackey about democracy and corruption in other countries.

  • Benzene in Soft Drinks – Analytical Artifact?

    Byoliveridley

    An update on the benzene story from last month.

    Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News – Dispute Over Benzene In Drinks

    In late 2005, FDA began analyzing beverages containing benzoate and ascorbic acid. The majority of samples contained either no detectable benzene or levels below 5 ppb, says Robert E. Brackett, director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition. FDA’s results are preliminary. After its survey is complete, the agency will determine what, if any, additional action is necessary, Brackett wrote to EWG. Changes in FDA’s analytical procedures may account for the differences in results. To collect benzene in the earlier tests, FDA used a purge-and-trap method, in which the samples were heated to 100 °C for 30 minutes. Recently, the agency has been using a static-headspace methodology, which does not involve much heat. In the earlier tests, the high heat was probably creating benzene, says an FDA source who asked not to be identified.

    The explanation seems to make sense. Low level analysis is riddled with instances such as these, where the analyte you’re looking for is  introduced into the sample after the fact. It is impossible to decide without looking at the protocol whether this happened or not. Since the source of the benzene is from the reaction of ascorbic acid (aka Vitamin C) and benzoate salts, notably sodium benzoate, it would have been clear to anyone doing the analysis to avoid conditions that would result in the formation of benzene during the analysis, or maybe not…

    Static Headspace analysis usually involves some heating as well, at much lower temperatures for shorter periods of time, though in the case of something as hydrophobic as benzene, not much heat would be required. So, the artifacts in static headspace would in this case be lower than in purge and trap analysis.

    Still not a concern in the grand scheme of aggregate benzene exposure.

  • |

    Fishing Major threat to Turtles

    Byoliveridley

    Well, not the least bit surprising, sea turtles have always been very difficult to track, and we’re finally getting verification that, gasp, turtles’ lives cannot be described in simple juvenile = open sea, adult = coast behavior.

    BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fishing ‘major threat’ to turtles

    Until now scientists have believed that young turtles live in the open ocean, but change to a coastal habitat when they reach a certain size.

    But researchers working in Cape Verde found that most adults nesting there retain their open water behaviour, with the attendant risk posed by longline boats.

    “The bottom line is that we thought juveniles experienced this risk out in the open ocean with longline fisheries,” said Brendan Godley from the University of Exeter.

    “We thought that if you got them past that, then unless they’re being taken by inshore fisheries, you’re OK,” he told the BBC News website.

    “But now you’ve got adults exposed to longline fisheries, which is very worrying.”

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.