Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 48
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    21
    Ok...

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    129
    Read this attachment. This was tested in a 2000sq ft home, and in a 3000sq ft replica home. Also, look who has performed all of the tests, and who they performed them for.
    Looks to be a good piece.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #29
    SPB
    This is a piece of marketing literature. These are not valid test results for a whole house system. But this is a good example of how one can take a little bit of truth and make a big story around it.

    If you read the literature, it implies that the PHI unit achieved some impressive mold, bacteria and yeast reductions in two residences - one of 2,000 square feet and one of 3,000 square feet. It also lists an impressive group of organizations including Kansas State University, California Microbiology Center and the University of Cincinnati that presumably have done testing with this device or have confirmed these results.

    It is my understanding that RGF licensed their "technology" to two mulitlevel sales organizations - Ecoquest and Shaklee. Both of these organizations did extensive testing. It looks like these PHI results come from one of those tests by Shaklee with their product called the AirSource 3000. I think a summary of the test is here:

    emfsafe.com/air/bacteria.htm

    Please note that these tests were done with a stand alone device. The results were obtained 13 feet from the device. Ozone counts in the house exceeded 50 ppb (which is high).

    Again, it has nothing to do with a device added to an HVAC unit. To imply that it does is misleading. So in summary I don't think it is a "good piece" or a good product.

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    129
    I guess we can agree to disagree.
    SOURCE: CDC CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
    California Microbiology Center
    Independent Accredited Lab - IBR
    Kansas State University
    University of Florida
    United States Air Force
    R&D Labs
    C&W Engineering
    University of Cincinnati
    Kane Regional Hospital

    and if it can clean MRSA out of the air in a 2000 or 3000 sq ft home, then it more than has my attention.
    Last edited by SPBryant; 11-22-2011 at 09:46 PM.

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by breathe easy View Post
    ...(not tested by either FEMA or KSU by the way)...
    Quote Originally Posted by breathe easy View Post
    It also lists an impressive group of organizations including Kansas State University, California Microbiology Center and the University of Cincinnati that presumably have done testing with this device or have confirmed these results.
    contradictory

  6. #32
    SPB
    I am not sure where you get the idea that this device would "clean MRSA out of the air of a 2,000 to 3,000 foot home." There are no tests that show this. If you know of any, please provide them. In fact, none of the tests presented by RGF show results in an in duct system.

    My reference to the listing of the so called "confirming testing organizations" is not contradictory. It is absolutely facetious. None of these organizations have conducted tests showing that the PHI devices reduced mold, bacteria and viruses in homes by 90+%. We have discussed this issue on this forum many times. The point is these organizations have conducted tests in chambers with stand alone devices. None of the tests apply to the real world or confirm the statements in the literature.

    The verdict is still the same - bad piece and bad product.

  7. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    129
    As far as MRSA, SOURCE: CDC CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
    TESTED BY KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY INACTIVATION RATE 99+%

    Do you have proof that none of the tests were done in a duct system?
    I have yet to see that.

    The government has been using this same technology for many years. Steris had gov. contracts producing them.
    If you are using it in a constant situation, such as when the heating/ a/c unit is running, and the unit is installed in the duct, it will work. I dont understand how you can knowledgably argue that.

  8. #34
    SPB
    Do I have proof that none of the tests were performed for a PHI system actually in use in a duct? Interesting. You would think it would be the other way around. The manufacturer producing the product and the marketing materials is the one that has to show the test results of an in duct system. Until I see any of these results, I believe I am safe in my assumption.

    Let's take the example of the MRSA paragraph and claim. This comes from the following study from Dr. James Marsden of Kansas State. (by the way Marsden is a food scientist - not an indoor air scientist)

    http://proquimes-sa.com/Portals/0/PD...o%20Dorado.pdf

    The tests were performed in a chamber (or bio safety cabinet) about the size of your home oven. The efficacy was determined by measuring the MRSA "kill" on stainless steel coupons after 24 hours.

    Once again this has nothing to do with indoor air or using one of the devices in a ducted system. What it shows is that the PHI will kill high rates of MRSA in a chamber the size of an oven - nothing more.

    What I love about this "study" is that the facts of an experiment do not lie. Marsden and his team also measure the ozone in the chamber. It goes from .08 ppm to .1 ppm. or 8 ppb to 100 ppb. The limit for medical devices set by the FDA is 50 ppb. The limit for ozone in California for air purifying devices is 50 ppb. In other words, the PHI produced twice the limit for ozone in the chamber. And they suggest using this device in a hospital!!

    No, this device has not been used by the government for indoor air. Furthermore, it has not been approved by any Federal agency for indoor air use.

    And no, I do not believe it works in a duct system. What I do believe is that the product literature is deceptive. There is a very important distinction between misleading and deceptive. Deceptive is when a majority reasonable people purchase a product based on information provided by the seller that they believe to be true - and it is false. The distinction is important because many states protect consumers from deceptive trade practices. For example, in Texas those individuals harmed by the purchase of a product sold deceptively are entitled to triple damages. That would apply to all in the supply chain including the contractor and the distributor. Something to think about.

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    129
    Did you read the whole thing? Its like interpreting the Bible with you. If you just see the parts that you want to see, then you wont see the big picture.
    "The Photohydroionization Cell
    produces oxidative gases that inactivate microorganisms in the air and on surfaces. These gases can reach
    all surfaces in health care and related environments."
    - from the pdf you posted.
    Also:
    "Results and Discussion:
    The exposure to oxidative gases produced by the PHI cell, including ozone and vaporized hydrogen
    peroxide resulted in reductions in Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus of 2.3 log CFU/cm2 after
    two hours, 2.5 log CFU/cm2 after 4 hours, 2.9 log CFU/cm2 after 8 hours and 4.7 log CFU/cm2 after 24
    hours. The reductions in the control samples were less than 0.5 log CFU/cm2 after 24 hours in the
    chamber without the PHI cell.
    Background levels of ozone were measured at 0.04 ppm in the chamber prior to activating the PHI cell.
    During the experiment, ozone levels ranged from 0.08 ppm to 0.1 ppm. Levels of vaporized Hydrogen
    Peroxide in the test chamber ranged from 0.016 to 0.290 PPM.
    This experiment demonstrated the effectiveness of the PHI cell at reducing populations of Methicillin
    resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on stainless steel surfaces.
    Based on this initial study, the technology has applications for controlling MRSA on surfaces in health
    care environments. It could act as an important adjunct to hand sanitation as a means of preventing
    hospital acquired MRSA infections. Future research will evaluate this technology on other types of
    surfaces and in simulated room environments."
    Now...MRSA can and DOES live within ducts, and is also spread this way. (I have recently had it, and my Girlfriend has as well)
    So, if you are implying that in a ducted system that it will not reduce the spread of MRSA(and many other things) then, I believe that you are greatly mistaken.

    Also, I never said "this device has been used by the government for indoor air". I said that the Gov. has been using this technology for quite some time. And I mentioned a company that produced decontamination chambers for them. Even though it was in a chamber, if the oxidative gases produced by the PHI cell, were distributed throughout ducts, and therefore the remaining parts of a bldg, then yes...theoretically it WILL reduce MRSA and other things as well.

  10. #36
    SPB
    Of course, I read the whole thing. In fact, I read 10-20 studies a week on a variety of different indoor air and allergy and asthma related subjects. What I have found is that one has to stick with the facts. You cannot look at a study and make assumptions about the "bigger picture."

    This study has to do with killing MRSA with a PHI device in a chamber the size of an oven. Results are only valid for the same conditions. They do not apply to a room or larger environment. It is the RGF people who include these results on their literature for units that are installed in ducts in the HVAC system. Most reasonable people assume that since it is on the literature, the results apply for the product in its normal use. This is deceptive.

    One of the negatives with the PHI device is that it produces ozone. The ozone level in the chamber at 100 ppb would not be safe for humans and would create chemical reactions in indoor air that produce byproducts that are potentially more dangerous than the things one is trying to control.

    Earlier in this thread I mentioned some tests I did with the PHI in a room with a small bowl of a terpene (pine scented cleaner). The reaction created 9,999,999 particles per cubic foot at 0.3 microns and larger. Very polluted outdoor air has about 6,500,000 particles at 0.3 microns per cubic foot. What was strange was that I was not recording very high ozone levels - even though these are same types of reactions we saw when we did other experiments with products like the infamous Ionic Breeze. I believe what was happening was that the ozone in the air was being consumed by the chemical reactions - not an uncommon phenomenon.

    The point is, based on what is shown in the study by Kansas State, it is questionable whether the PHI device could be used safely in a larger environment. So why would someone install it?

    Let's use another example. This time let's use the same size chamber but we will use a real oven. We could use the same stainless steel coupons treated with MRSA. We will turn the oven on to 300 degrees F. In 24 hours we would have a 99+ kill rate of the MRSA (MRSA dies at about 150 degrees F). We could make the same assumption and say that a hospital could control MRSA by maintaining a temperature of 300 degrees F. But it might be a bit uncomfortable.

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    129
    lol

    But really, if it works in an oven...wouldnt it work in ductwork?
    And wouldnt that mean that you would get cleaner air throughout the home?

    what about having it installed near the coil?

  12. #38
    If it works in an oven, why wouldn't it work installed in a duct? Two reasons - the laws of chemistry and physics.

    The PHI device activates Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) like ozone, hydroxyl radicals, hydrogen peroxide and others. These molecules react with other molecules. You would have to have the same number of molecules per cubic foot to have the same reactions. Obviously, a PHI device operating in a space of 6 cubic feet would have a different density of molecules than one operating in 6,000 cubic feet.

    Secondly, you would have to have the same distribution of the molecules in the space. Distribution in the chamber would be direct because of the close proximity. Distribution with a PHI device installed in a duct would be dependent on the position of the returns, the supplies and the patterns of the air flow.

    And, no, I don't think I am beating a dead horse. It seems to me that if you are not understanding these concepts, there are other people who are reading this thread who may have the same issues who could benefit from this information.

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern VA 38 degrees N by 76 degrees W
    Posts
    5,062
    Quote Originally Posted by breathe easy View Post
    SPB
    I am not sure where you get the idea that this device would "clean MRSA out of the air of a 2,000 to 3,000 foot home." There are no tests that show this. If you know of any, please provide them. In fact, none of the tests presented by RGF show results in an in duct system.

    My reference to the listing of the so called "confirming testing organizations" is not contradictory. It is absolutely facetious. None of these organizations have conducted tests showing that the PHI devices reduced mold, bacteria and viruses in homes by 90+%. We have discussed this issue on this forum many times. The point is these organizations have conducted tests in chambers with stand alone devices. None of the tests apply to the real world or confirm the statements in the literature.

    The verdict is still the same - bad piece and bad product.
    This would be my contention.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event