08-03-2007, 11:08 AM
I'd love to understand how it can kill viruses and bacteria remotely, in the living space, without attacking me as well?
Originally Posted by Val Rich
08-03-2007, 12:22 PM
That is a very valid desire. I check your profile to see if there was contact information there or not and could not find any. I would be more than happy to send you the "White Paper" of the study done by KSU and other information if you would like to send me your e-mail address.
My contact information is in my profile.
08-03-2007, 12:31 PM
How ironic, an inflamatory, trollish post-and-run that accuses others of being unprofessional. It added no useful information, no references that could be looked up beyond vague assertions of university research and independent labs, and simply contained a bunch of fallacies: "I make tons of money so I must be right" (conmen and drug smugglers and pushers make money as well, that doesn't make them right) and "aren't you all silly for looking up information on the intertubes" (now who's not keeping up with technology) .
Originally Posted by Able
Breathe easy's, mbarson's and genesis' posts are at a level you can't reach, buddy.
08-03-2007, 12:33 PM
thank you, will do!
Originally Posted by Val Rich
08-03-2007, 01:06 PM
Hey Val while you are touting a paper about surface contact from Kansas State that has no relevance to IAQ Read this paper from the EPA.
08-03-2007, 01:49 PM
The KSU study you mention was conducted in a test chamber with 24 hour exposure on stainless steel food contact surfaces. It has nothing to do with indoor air or surfaces in a normal indoor environment. To say the results apply to indoor air or surfaces in a building is false and misleading.
08-03-2007, 01:54 PM
Genesis, I beg to differ with you. What is on the surfaces in our homes and businesses has everything to do with IAQ. If it is on the surfaces, it is also in the air.
As far a ozone goes, there is a differing opinion of its health risk even among the scientists (of which I am not one). However, the technology that I am talking about is not ozone technology.
Check out [URL="http://www.airresourcesbrief.com"], you will find studies done by both Kansas State University and the University of Cincinatti, both of which have noted research departments.
There is also a very good article on ozone.
But going back to what I originally said, every environment is different and every situation is different. What will work in one place may not be the best for another. EcoQuest's guarantee is "Try it, if it doesn't improve your environment send it back for a full refund."
Last edited by Val Rich; 08-03-2007 at 01:56 PM.
Reason: left out a word
08-03-2007, 01:57 PM
Genesis or others
Genesis or others, I read the article you (Genesis) posted and pulled this from the article:
When inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs. Relatively low amounts of ozone can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath and, throat irritation. It may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma as well as compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections.
I have asthma and have seen dramatic improvements when I have used quality air filters for my house. My last system was an electronic air filter and worked incredibly well at eliminating my allergies (when cleaned regularly) which trigger my asthma.
I did not like having to clean the system as much as I did in order to make it keep it's integrity in terms of cleaning the air so I decided to go a different route this time. In my place I had two of the Lennox Pure Air systems installed which have a merv 16 filter in them and seem to do a solid job of eliminating things which again would trigger my allergies, thus my asthma.
I am a lay person, not a professional like so many of you and the world of perfecting IAQ is obviously still a work in progress to say the least.
My question for you and others is was that an ok choice? The system is their latest PCO 20-28 design and I just don't want to think I did something to pollute or irritate my lungs such as creating ozone inside my home. On their website it states about the Pure Air unit, "Reduces and destroys ozone (a product of pollution and a known lung irritant)"
I would appreciate feedback from you specialists and I am hoping to hear that it was a decent choice for the home in the imperfect (yet) world of IAQ, thanks in advance.
08-03-2007, 01:59 PM
Breathe Easy, there is an easy way to check it out and I have done it. Get a luminometer, take a sample of a kitchen counter, note the microbial number, run an EcoQuest Fresh Air in the area for 24 to 48 hours, repeat your test and compare the difference.
08-03-2007, 05:07 PM
Sanuvox Bulletin on Ecoquest/RGF
Breath Easy is correct in his analysis of the Ecoquest product. You cannot develop a product on a small section of scientific research... you must provide the whole story as there are scientific facts before and after the sections used by Ecoquest that invalidate what they are claiming. They are a marketing company, not a science based company.
I have a pdf attached that shows our testing of the RGF Phi cell product which actually makes the Ecoquest product. Ecoquest simply private labels their products.
It's astounding what Ecoquest and RGF are trying to do. You cannot use ozone to treat biological contaminants because the level of ozone needed is too high and creates a health hazard. They are basically trying to reduce one contaminant, but in the process introducing another contaminant. You must use UVC wavelength lamps if you plan on treating biological contaminants.
In addition, if you are treating the air flow there are different scientic principles in use compared to when you are treating an object such as a surface or a heating and cooling coil. There is no one size fits all for residential or for commercial.
I could go on and on, but it would get too lengthy.
I also have a 1998 EPA study done on PCO. If you want me to email it, send me a pm or email. It states that for PCO to be effective you need massive amounts of surface area. For example, for it to work in a typical residential application, you would need hundreds of square footage. Technically and economically not feasible, thus the science is great in theory, but poor in the real world application.
Last edited by beenthere; 09-07-2010 at 09:48 PM.
Reason: Removed link as per posters request.
08-03-2007, 05:08 PM
If you read the University of Cincinnati article carefully, you will find that it shows that the Fresh Air produces a significant amount of ozone, is relatively ineffective at particle reduction but may have some effect on bioaerosols in a chamber the size of a small closet. As you know the device has a number of modes of operation ie. away, ionization and pco. These significantly alter the outcomes. There is no mention which mode was used in which test. I continue to be unimpressed.
As it turns out I have "tried" or tested the Fresh Air. I found that it produces a significant amount of ozone in all modes of operation and is about as effective in a closed 160 square foot room as a MERV 8 filter in reducing particles. A small HEPA filter producing just 40 cfm was twice as effective.
To make matters worse it really messes up the indoor air chemistry. The combination of ozone and hydroxyl radicals creates a chemical soup with the other components of indoor air. Let me give you some data. It has been shown that terpenes (which are common household VOC's that provide the scent in various products) react with ozone and other ROS to create sub-micron sized particles. One of the most common terpenes is pinene which provides the scent in products like Pine Sol. But anything with a citrus scent is also a terpene. We placed a small bowl of Pine Sol in a 400 square foot room with a Fresh Air. The Fresh Air was set to operate only on the PCO mode. Within a relatively short time (3 hours) the particles in the room maxed out my particle counter at 9,999,999 particles over 0.3 microns per cubic foot. To put this in some perspective the worst particle count I have ever recorded outside was around 6,500,000 particles per cubic foot. This was on a Red Ozone alert day about 300 feet from a highway with traffic of over 250,000 cars per day. Picture attached.
08-03-2007, 05:16 PM
PCO study by EPA
Here's the EPA study on PCO. Pay close attention to the conclusions section as there is alot of scientific data in the report.
08-04-2007, 10:40 AM
Kieth, that is from 98, ther is much newer posts on the EPA claiming that ultimately PCo will be the future solution to indoor polution. They called it the most promising IAQ technology yet...so lets stop posting outdated, irrelivant info to discredit a product. Do you think NASA would put their astronauts in harms way? Do they use technology without testing it? Just because the testing isn't public doesn't make it less. Ecoquest is mentioned specifically on the NASA site and not just PCO...if it was junk it wouldn't be there. and I said NASA not the space foundation. This technology (PCO)/Photo plasma) is in the space station presently. It was designed to convert ethelyne gas to CO2, do you think they would fail to test for other IAQ interactions?
Chaos theory distributs friendly oxidisers throughout your airspace dependant on air flow. It is called Chaos theory, look it up. Hydrogen peroxide attacks single celled microbes and not you. Check the clinical guide to pharmacology if you don't believe me. I did!