ActivePure Technology ActivTek 2000

[breathe easy]

Why would someone else have to do a study to prove that the ActivTek/Ecoquest technology is dangerous? These devices produce ozone and other chemicals that have been shown to have detrimental health effects on the elderly, infants, asthmatics and those with other respiratory diseases. That is why all leading health organizations have opposed them. It seems to me that the company producing the product would have to do a study to show that they are "safe." Which, of course, has not been done.

The reason ActivTek/Ecoquest has paid for studies is that they are under an FTC order which requires them to have "scientific" verification for their statements. If you read their literature, they do not state that any of the claims about surface inactivation of microbials apply to anything besides the tests conducted in the chambers at UC and KSU. It is the mis-guided individual multi-level marketers that make the claims.

I don't think I have misrepresented Grinshpun's study at all. These units produce significant levels of ozone - even on the UVPCO setting only. They also produce other chemicals that alter the indoor air chemistry. To say that these chemicals kill or inactivate all of the bad stuff but do not harm lung tissue or human cells is not credible. They do produce chemical reactions that often lead to harmful byproducts such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen) and ultrafine particles which can penetrate human cell walls.

At the urging of several participants in a similar thread I tested the Activtek/Ecoquest technology to determine what would happen if one of these devices were exposed to an organic in the form of a terpene. Terpenes are the substances that give products their scents like lemon, lime, pine, etc. Attached are the results.

The average room has about 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 particles of 0.3 microns and above. The room with the Aktivtek/Ecoquest product running had particle counts that maxed out my particle counter at 9,999,999. Incidentally, the ozone level did not exceed 40 ppb because the ozone produced by the machine reacted with other organics in the room such as carpeting, boxes, rubber, etc.

You are correct in saying that I have something against your products. However, it has nothing to do with my filter business. I can truthfully say that the sales of your products in their many forms have had no effect on my business whatsover. The fact is I don't like the products because I do not feel that they are safe or effective. They are sold with many unsubstantiated claims. I do not like the multi-level method of marketing. I particularly do not like the fact that a few individuals have made alot of money taking advantage of well-meaning people such as yourself.

[pureairsolution]

Why would someone else have to do a study to prove that the ActivTek/Ecoquest technology is dangerous? These devices produce ozone and other chemicals that have been shown to have detrimental health effects on the elderly, infants, asthmatics and those with other respiratory diseases. That is why all leading health organizations have opposed them. It seems to me that the company producing the product would have to do a study to show that they are "safe." Which, of course, has not been done.

Well, for one, YOU said that the technology is dangerous and ineffective. That would mean, according to your statement, that SOMEONE would have information on the activepure technology which, to borrow a line from you, had not been done.



One of the units you mentioned is the "Fresh Air." It is used for BOTH occupied AND occupied spaces. One needs to learn HOW to use it.

THE AOP ( advanced oxidation process ) is all natural.

These systems do NOT, I repeat, do NOT produce chemicals that have been shown ( WHERE???) to have detrimental effects..."

Would you consider The American Lung Association a leading health organization? They PURCHASED OUR UNIT and GAVE them away FREE to PATIENTS. ( The Gemini. )

As for the particulate meter and the Fresh Air, you DO realize that its NOT the particulate that come OUT of the unit that is the issue!

When the fan is on in a Fresh Air machine, of COURSE the particulate count is going to be high! Why? Its because the airflow is collecting particulate and rushing the particles fast though the machine and back out again and as the particles pass over the sensor in a RUSH, the COUNT WOULD BE HIGH.

Its the ionization process that DROPS particulates OUT of the airspace.

The way to test this unit is first, HAVE THE UNIT OFF. Then do a particulate count with the meter. THEN run the Fresh Air for a few days giving the negative and positive ionic charges a chance to go OUT FROM the unit, attach themselves to particulate matter by a negative charge on ONE particle and a positive charge on ANOTHER particle and as NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE IONS ATTRACT TO EACH OTHER, the particulates ( like dust and smoke ) will DROP to surface levels and THEN turn the machine OFF, hold the particluate sensor up in the air and the count will be SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than the original test.

***Holding the particulate count near the unit does NOT do the unit justice AT ALL. Whether it is held near the back or front that is NOT how to do the test with THIS unit being it is an ACTIVE and not PASSIVE system.***

Ions need a chance to do their job.

As for the Network Marketing side of the company, HVAC contractors may chose to not get involved with that side of the opportunity and chose to stick strictly to the retail marketing side.

I will get to the other charts you posted soon.

Ozone is NOT SMOG.

Ozone is NOT the major component of smog.

Ozone is NOT a toxic gas in the environment at LOW LEVELS.

Is water hazardous if I am at the bottom of a pool for more than 7 minutes? YES. I will drown. Does that mean water is a toxic liquid and should be avoided?

Is oxygen a toxic gas? If I breath in high concentrated levels YES. I will DIE. Does that mean that oxygen is to be classified as "dangerous?"

What about ozone? Is small amounts bad? For most NO. For a very few people even a small amount when they WALK THE STREETS IS IRRITATING. Can we then get ozone to stop being produced by NATURE FOR THESE FEW PEOPLE??

I have made my point.

Do not blame the fire on the firefighter thats putting out the fire.

That means, do not call ozone the major component of smog when its ozone that is being produced BY NATURE AND RISES to combat the MAN-MADE POLLUTION coming out of tailpipes during RUSH HOURS for example!!!!!!

The more hydrocarbons that are produced by car emisions, the more ozone is produced.
In an age of sound bites and live reporting, this myth about ozone is somewhat understandble. It is true that when smog levels are HIGH, so are the MEASURED ozone levels. While ozone is easy to measure, HYDROCARBONS ARE NOT They are too complex. In addition, ozone is ALWAYS PRESENT IN LEVELS CONSISTENT WITH THE HYDROCARBON ( SMOG/POLLUTION ) LEVEL THEREFORE THE COMMON ASSUMPTION IS PERPETRATED THAT OZONE IS THE CULPRIT!

The real truth is HYDROCARBONS are the major component of smog and NOT ozone. So the agencies need to re-vamp their websites, INCLUDING THE EPA and CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCE BOARD for example that say OZONE is a major component of smog. Agencies like this should be ashamed of themselves for such blatant misrepresentations.

Again, it bears repeating: ozone forms NATURALLY when SUNLIGHT REACTS WITH MAN-MADE HYDROCARBONS IN THE AIR ( from automobile exhausts and smokestack emissions for example. Ever smell the air around the New Jersey Turnpike??? )

Moreover, it is the OZONE that is produced NATURALLY OUTDOORS that is actually nature's secret and nature's way for helping to BREAK DOWN THOSE HARMFUL SMOG COMPONENTS COMING OUT OF TAILPIPES AND SMOKESTACKS!!

Don't blame the fire on the firefighter.



You have totally disregarded the positive studies done on ozone that I gave you and I ask WHY do you negate THEIR findings?

http://www.understandingozone.com/do...ne_Therapy.pdf ( This is NOT an EcoQuest site. )

Stop the unwarranted prejudice against ozone.

YOU and I need it to SURVIVE in our ecoculture outdoors and indoors. Thats why NATURE produces it.

Then you said:

The fact is I don't like the products because I do not feel that they are safe or effective. They are sold with many unsubstantiated claims. I do not like the multi-level method of marketing. I particularly do not like the fact that a few individuals have made alot of money taking advantage of well-meaning people such as yourself.

I have already answered about the multi-level side of our company and no HVAC contractor that choses to market these technologies has to get involved with that side. They can stick to the retail marketing side of the company alone.

However, if the products ARE safe ( which they are ) and effective ( which they are ) and if one knows learns HOW TO USE OUR PRODUCTS AND HOW TO TEST THEM, then their should be no problem.

You do not have to like multi-level marketing. Just make sure you do not project THAT dislike to the TECHNOLOGY, because the TECHNOLOGY WORKS.

I already mentioned the hospital study that was done.

http://www.cpaccarolinas.org/Present...20Overview.pdf

GO TO PAGE 34, its right there and proves the process is EFFECTIVE.

You also stated:


"I don't think I have misrepresented Grinshpun's study at all. These units produce significant levels of ozone - even on the UVPCO setting only. They also produce other chemicals that alter the indoor air chemistry. To say that these chemicals kill or inactivate all of the bad stuff but do not harm lung tissue or human cells is not credible. They do produce chemical reactions that often lead to harmful by products such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen) and ultrafine particles which can penetrate human cell walls."


Wow, thats amazing. With not a SHRED OF scientific studies saying that, with the Uniformity of Conformity documents saying othewise, with all credible testings done on the ozone output on this technology.... YOU say this!

Show us WHERE in this article by Dr. Grinshpun that he said what YOU said here "..I don't think I have misrepresented Grinshpun's study at all. These units produce significant levels of ozone - even on the UVPCO setting only. They also produce other chemicals that alter the indoor air chemistry. .."

http://www.ecoquestintl.com/dlrdown/...estResults.pdf

There has never been any HINT that the entire 5 stage process we employ together ever produced a harmful by-product like "formaldehyde." If that WERE true, you know what, then nature OUTDOORS would be producing a by-product like formaldehyde also, because the exact same strategies are used that nature uses OUTDOORS.

In FACT, I repeat, IN FACT, whatever LOW levels of ozone are produced by the technology is converted BACK into oxygen with the RCI cell operating! The friendly oxidizers are friendly an effective as natural as the sun and lightning.

What makes the Fresh Air Work?

EcoQuest has been in the air purification business for nearly 24 years. During this time some of the best minds in the business have been working to develop a system to clean indoor air that is efficient, effective and economical. The result of this dedication and hard work is a product called Fresh Air. This marvelous air purifier will clean, purify, and sanitize up to 3000 sq feet of indoor living space. This is done by using SynAirG, five important systems working in harmony to give you the best quality air available.

These systems are:

Negative Ions:

Negative ions (or anions as they are called), are distributed into the indoor space to cause the tiny, lighter than air particles that are floating in the air to bind together, become heavier than air, and settle out of your breathing space. You will quickly notice a dramatic reduction in the number of particles floating in a sunbeam that shines into the room. Where do the particles go? As the particles gain mass and weight, they settle out of your breathing space so they can no longer cause irritation. Some of the particulate will actually be oxidized by other functions of this air purification system. Over time, less and less particulate will be evident in your home or business. You may even find you have less cleaning to do.

Radio “Frequency” Particle Reduction:

This is a unique process that only EcoQuest has. Radio wave energy is distributed throughout the indoor space, traveling into adjoining rooms, down to the basement and upstairs to other floors. This Radio Wave energy puts a charge on particles it contacts and causes them to bind together like the more powerful Needle Point Ionization.
This process extends the settling process up to 60 feet in all directions.

Ultra-Violet light:

High quality, powerful, germicidal quality UV-C light is produced using a powerful proprietary long-life UV bulb. This higher intensity UV-C bulb is also called a UVX bulb, because the bulbs frequency is at the high end of the UV band, just under the X-Band (penetrating frequency). A UV-X bulb produces a light with the same oxidation, sterilization and ionization properties as naturally occurring sunlight, destroying microbiological contaminants, bacteria and other irritants in your breathing space. This feature adds an additional cleansing effect to the Fresh Air’s process, helping produce safe, clean, germ-free air to breath.

**RCI, Certified Space Technology**:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm-mP9OF1E

Radiant Catalytic Ionization™ (RCI) is technology developed by NASA to clean the air in spacecraft. The process is called Photo Catalytic Oxidation and EcoQuest Fresh Air is the only residential Air Purification system carrying the NASA Space Foundation Certified Space Technology seal. The RCI technology replicates the cleaning power of the sun by utilizing a proprietary high-power UVX bulb shining on a catalytic target consisting of a honey-comb cell coated with a Quad Metallic Hydrophilic Coating. The coating is made by the bonding of four rare and noble metals in proper proportion.


****The RCI cell creates a “Purifying Plaza” consisting of Hydroxyls, Hydroxides, Super Oxide Ions, Ozonite Ions and Hydro-Peroxides, all of which are distributed throughout the air space where the purifier is located to clean the air and surfaces.****

HOW DO ANY OF THESE NATURAL PROCESSES CONSTITUTE WHAT YOU SAID AS "chemicals?" These elements are NOT " hazardous chemicals."


University testing has shown reductions of mold, bacteria and viruses, including E-Coli, MRSA, Stachybotrys and Listeria up to 99.9%. As the Purifying Plasma enters the environment it destroys the microbiological contaminants they come in contact with, leaving the air and surfaces clean, fresh, and safe.

Activated Oxygen (Ozone) for Additional Purification (Use this function for rapid freshen-up or for odor removal) :

Nature’s purifier, a very active three atom form of oxygen known as ozone, is produced in the Fresh Air much the same way it is produced in nature. An optional feature of the Fresh Air, this very active form of oxygen is delivered out the front of the unit by an ultra-quiet fan when the function called “Hi-Mode” is engaged. The benefit of using activated oxygen is its ability to move throughout the home or office destroying cooking odors, cigar smoke, cigarette smoke, and pet odors.

This feature will allow a deeper cleaning in the AWAY mode. It can be programmed for 2, 4, 6 or 8 hours but many homeowners will elect to manually activate the AWAY feature for only a few minutes if they have an incident such as burning the toast or popcorn in the microwave! Normal use of the AWAY mode is selecting 2, 4, 6 or 8 hours. After the preset time has expired, the Fresh Air returns to its normal settings to continue to give you protection 24/7 for pennies a day.

The synergistic effect of these systems working in perfect harmony results in you having the freshest, cleanest and healthiest air available for you and those you love. The Fresh Air will effectively treat from 200 to 3000 sq feet of indoor space.

Here is Dr. James Marsden of Kansas State University appearing on Alexander Haig's program, "World Business Review" and on his endorsement of the RCI technology he tested.

http://www.wbrtv.com/media_stream/1708/ecoquest.html

Dr. Marsden's bio:

http://www.k-state.edu/media/mediagu...arsdenbio.html

As for your blatant misquote from Dr. Grishspun, here is what he actually DID say in his published peer review:

" In both test chambers (non-ventilated), the ozone concentration gradually increased as the purifier was continuously operating. In the 24.3-m3 chamber, it increased from 0.006 to 0.05 ppm in about 35 min, while in a smaller (2.75-m3) chamber the same increase occurred in approximately 5 min. However, once an air exchange was introduced (as low as 1 ACH), the ozone concentration in the 24.3-m3 chamber did not significantly increase as compared to the initial level (p > 0.05). Our monitoring data obtained with the tested unit operating in a non-ventilated room of ∼100m3 (not presented here) suggest that the ozone level can be kept below 0.05 ppm while room of ∼100m3 (not presented here) suggest that the ozone level can be kept below 0.005 ppm while the unit continuously operates for many hours."

If you can read and comprehend this, it says NOTHING about HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF OZONE.

It is amazing that you say I am "misinformed" when YOU cannot even QUOTE Dr. Grinspuns article correctly!

Quite ironic!

[pureairsolution]

You are not in the right when you say that the technology is not proven to be safe or effective. Thats only your bias that comes out. Bias does not equate correct facts.

"These devices produce ozone and other chemicals that have been shown to have detrimental health effects on the elderly, infants, asthmatics and those with other respiratory diseases."

Do you realize how many medical doctors would tell you the opposite? You are, again, referring to high amounts of ozone and I keep telling you that very LOW amounts of ozone is produced with this technology AND that we also manufacture systems and RCI cells that do NOT produce ozone at all for those who do not want ozone! We have systems that HAVE low level ozone outputs and systems that have NO OZONE CAPACITY AT ALL. So, there IS a choice.

NO LOW amount of ozone would ever have detrimental heath effects on the elderly, infants, asthmatics or those with other respiratory diseases. Again, you are misrepresenting the facts.

Your comment on "formaldehide: you got here:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/.../2338/report/0

What does THAT article have a THING to do with OUR ActivePure technology?

You are getting statements from websites, many of which do not have accurate information.

I would like you to show the links TO those websites so I may comment on them.

Thats the fair thing to so.

[pureairsolution]

Breathe Easy, the only reason I take the time to answer your posts is for the sake of others that read the boards..I am not in a habit of trying to chance the minds of others that do not want to keep an open mind and an open door and even say that they may be wrong.

You are adamant in your views and not correct in them and I am not trying to change you. I answer your statements for the sake of others so that they can see that there is another side to this rather than a blanked, "Its bad..its no good..its not effective.....its dangerous..there's no evidence......" mantras.

Say those statements long enough they still do not become fact.

What I do not tolerate is misrepresentation, whether consciously done or not.

To me, its like saying, "The New York Yankees won the American League Eastern Division Championship for 2009 and yet you say they did NOT!

The fact is they did win no?

Facts are facts regardless of who says otherwise.

[pmeunier]

...
What I do not tolerate is misrepresentation, whether consciously done or not.
...

Yet you cite circa ~ 1910 research without mentioning how outdated it is, as if it was consistent with modern medical knowledge? From the time when doctors told moms to apply Mercurochrome on their kids' wounds? From when asbestos use was widespread?

I looked at the "RCI IAQ overview" slides. Where to start? The claim one one slide that deadly germs travel on airborne particles, and on the previous slide that the airborne particles that we should worry about are the < 0.01 uM ones, whereas bacterias range in size from 0.2-2 microns in width or diameter? It's replete with non sequiturs.

"Do you realize how many medical doctors would tell you the opposite?" -- Please name some that are still alive, practicing with a valid license and are willing to risk their license going on the record and saying that ozone can't have any "detrimental health effects on the elderly, infants, asthmatics and those with other respiratory diseases."

You're so far out there, and being strident doesn't help...

[breathe easy]

pas
I agree with pm. It does not help your cause to be so strident.

It also does not help your cause when you do not do the background research to support your points. Despite the length of your responses you continue to repeat the marketing points made by Activetek/Ecoquest. Just because they say it - it does not make it right.

On the issue of air cleaners and ozone safety I would have to agree with Dr. Jonathan Samet of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health when he said in the May 2005 Issue of Consumer Reports: "We can't guarantee safety at any ozone level, so it makes sense not to contaminate your living space."

The reactions of ozone -even at low levels - with various organics to produce ultrafine particles and formaldehyde as well as other byproducts is well known and documented. A simple Google search on any of the above mentioned indoor air scientists would give you ample support for this statement.

Recently, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) undertook a study to determine what a "safe" level of ozone would be for an air cleaner. the initial report supported the 50ppb limit used by the FDA for medical devices. Unlike many reports this one was met with many responses and questions. The noted indoor air Scientist, Dr. Richard Corsi, from the University of Texas at Austin responded with a 50 page "white paper."

In his response, Dr. Corsi points out that the premise of the CPSC study is to find information that would prove that the 50 ppb standard is not safe. The assumption is that at some point in the past a study or some research was done to determine that the 50 ppb was safe and that the FDA established their regulations based on these findings. As it turns out this is a bad assumption. There was no research. As stated in the Federal Register of June 27, 1972, the 50 ppb of ozone was "recommended" by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). It was not based on a medical study. It was an arbitrary recommendation based on the fact that the outdoor limit at that time was 100 ppb and that the indoor limit should be much less than that. Yet, it has become the standard. Who could have ever imagined this 35 years ago?

Corsi goes on to explain that there are studies that have been done that raise serious concerns about the safety of adding ozone to indoor air. Small increases in ozone have been shown to have significant effects on mortality, asthma symptoms and respiratory discomfort. For example, Dr. Michelle Bell of Yale University found in her study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2004 that just a 10 ppb increase in environmental ozone caused a 0.52% increase in mortality or about 4,000 deaths per year. In another study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Bell, et. al. found that there were significant health effects for ANY increase in ozone - even less than 10 ppb. Gent, et.al. also in a JAMA article in 2003 found that increases in ozone of 50 ppb were detrimental to children with asthma. These increases resulted in a 35% increase in likelihood of wheeze and a 47% increase in chest tightness. Triche, et. al. in an article in Environmental Health Perspectives in 2006 found that infants (especially those with asthmatic mothers) had significant increases in wheeze and breathing difficulties with small increases in ozone at or below EPA standards.

All of the above studies are based on outdoor ozone measurements. Even though some of the studies are mentioned in the CPSC report, they are not considered because of this fact. Corsi argues that these studies and others are relevant and "on point." There are several reasons for this. First, people spend 90% of their time indoors. Secondly, indoor ozone levels track outdoor ozone levels. (Indoor levels run between 20% and 70% of outdoor levels.) The prolonged indoor exposure is a more important factor in determining health effects than the few minutes a day spent outdoors in elevated ozone conditions. (The infant study of Triche, et. al. supports this position. Babies spend more than 90% of their time indoors.)

Corsi points out that the indoor ozone level is only one aspect of the health effects equation. Ozone is a very reactive gas. Because of this it initiates substantial amounts of indoor air chemistry. Ozone reacts readily with various volatile organic compounds (VOC's) to create other undesirable byproducts. Two of the major outcomes of this indoor air chemistry are formaldehyde (a known carcinogen) and secondary organic aeresols (ultrafine particles). To assess the effects of elevated indoor ozone levels Corsi included the ozone itself - but also the formaldehyde and the ultrafine particles. All three can have a detrimental effect on human health.

By using a sophisticated modeling program including such factors as room size, air exchanges, levels of VOC's such as terpenes and linalool alcohol, outdoor to indoor ozone transfers, and reaction rates for the indoor air chemistry, Corsi was able to calculate maximum ozone emission rates for a residence, an office and a school. This was done for a "best case" where individuals in these settings would have normal respiratory function and for a "worst case" where individuals would be from the sensitive populations of the young, the elderly and those with respiratory diseases such as asthma and COPD. What he found was that the "best case" scenario allowed for an ozone emitting air cleaner to produce 17.5 mg/hr of ozone in a home (whole house), 1.3 mg/hr in an office and 9.9 mg/hr in a school. In the "worst case" scenario where the air cleaners would be used around people in the respiratorially sensitive population the ozone producing air cleaner was allowed to emit 0.45 mg/hr of ozone in a home, 0.041 mg/hr in an office and 0.13 mg/hr in a school.

In his cover letter to the CPSC Corsi summarized these findings by saying: "it is my opinion that standards for the protection of the general public should be focused on an incremental increase in ozone concentration of 5 ppb (at most) and less than 5 ppb to protect those most sensitive to ozone and its reaction products."

The Grinshpun study clearly shows that the Ecoquest units produce ozone in excess of these levels. Also, the tests we did show that the units (even in PCO mode only) emit sufficient ozone to create reactions that produce ultrafine particles.

In our tests I was somewhat surprised at how inefficient the ionizer was at removing particles. Before we added the terpene to the test room we saw a reduction in particles of about 5%. According to your explanation the particles in the room would have to be stable in the room for days for them to achieve the proper negative and positive charges. Unfortunately, particles in air do not act that way. They are constantly moving and exchanging depending on the activity in the room, outside air infiltration, and other internal sources.

By the way the picture was taken to illustrate the point of the unit pegging the particle counter at 9,999,999 particles per cubic foot at 0.3 microns and above. The same reading was present throughout the room.

Finally, news reports on the sale of Ecoquest stated that the purchaser bought only the assets of the company. The purchaser was closing the facility in Tennessee eliminating about 170 jobs (employment was once at 700). Michael Jackson was described as taking the role of a "consultant." The new owners emphasized that he was "not an owner or an employee."

This makes one wonder about what happens to the liabilities of the old company. I suppose they are unfunded and the creditors are receiving nothing. It also makes you wonder about the status of any product liability claims.

[genesis]

How is Ozone Harmful?

The same chemical properties that allow high concentrations of ozone to react with organic material outside the body give it the ability to react with similar organic material that makes up the body, and potentially cause harmful health consequences. When inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs (see - "Ozone and Your Health" - www.epa.gov/airnow/brochure.html). Relatively low amounts can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, and, throat irritation. Ozone may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections. People vary widely in their susceptibility to ozone. Healthy people, as well as those with respiratory difficulty, can experience breathing problems when exposed to ozone. Exercise during exposure to ozone causes a greater amount of ozone to be inhaled, and increases the risk of harmful respiratory effects. Recovery from the harmful effects can occur following short-term exposure to low levels of ozone, but health effects may become more damaging and recovery less certain at higher levels or from longer exposures (US EPA, 1996a, 1996b).

Manufacturers and vendors of ozone devices often use misleading terms to describe ozone. Terms such as "energized oxygen" or "pure air" suggest that ozone is a healthy kind of oxygen. Ozone is a toxic gas with vastly different chemical and toxicological properties from oxygen. Several federal agencies have established health standards or recommendations to limit human exposure to ozone.

Are Ozone Generators Effective in Controlling Indoor Air Pollution?

Available scientific evidence shows that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone has little potential to remove indoor air contaminants.

Some manufacturers or vendors suggest that ozone will render almost every chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading.

First, a review of scientific research shows that, for many of the chemicals commonly found in indoor environments, the reaction process with ozone may take months or years (Boeniger, 1995). For all practical purposes, ozone does not react at all with such chemicals. And contrary to specific claims by some vendors, ozone generators are not effective in removing carbon monoxide (Salls, 1927; Shaughnessy et al., 1994) or formaldehyde (Esswein and Boeniger, 1994).


Second, for many of the chemicals with which ozone does readily react, the reaction can form a variety of harmful or irritating by-products (Weschler et al., 1992a, 1992b, 1996; Zhang and Lioy, 1994). For example, in a laboratory experiment that mixed ozone with chemicals from new carpet, ozone reduced many of these chemicals, including those which can produce new carpet odor. However, in the process, the reaction produced a variety of aldehydes, and the total concentration of organic chemicals in the air increased rather than decreased after the introduction of ozone (Weschler, et. al., 1992b). In addition to aldehydes, ozone may also increase indoor concentrations of formic acid (Zhang and Lioy, 1994), both of which can irritate the lungs if produced in sufficient amounts. Some of the potential by-products produced by ozone’s reactions with other chemicals are themselves very reactive and capable of producing irritating and corrosive by-products (Weschler and Shields, 1996, 1997a, 1997b). Given the complexity of the chemical reactions that occur, additional research is needed to more completely understand the complex interactions of indoor chemicals in the presence of ozone.


Third, ozone does not remove particles (e.g., dust and pollen) from the air, including the particles that cause most allergies. However, some ozone generators are manufactured with an "ion generator" or "ionizer" in the same unit. An ionizer is a device that disperses negatively (and/or positively) charged ions into the air. These ions attach to particles in the air giving them a negative (or positive) charge so that the particles may attach to nearby surfaces such as walls or furniture, or attach to one another and settle out of the air. In recent experiments, ionizers were found to be less effective in removing particles of dust, tobacco smoke, pollen or fungal spores than either high efficiency particle filters or electrostatic precipitators. (Shaughnessy et al., 1994; Pierce, et al., 1996). However, it is apparent from other experiments that the effectiveness of particle air cleaners, including electrostatic precipitators, ion generators, or pleated filters varies widely (U.S. EPA, 1995).

There is evidence to show that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone is not effective at removing many odor-causing chemicals.

In an experiment designed to produce formaldehyde concentrations representative of an embalming studio, where formaldehyde is the main odor producer, ozone showed no effect in reducing formaldehyde concentration (Esswein and Boeniger, 1994). Other experiments suggest that body odor may be masked by the smell of ozone but is not removed by ozone (Witheridge and Yaglou, 1939). Ozone is not considered useful for odor removal in building ventilation systems (ASHRAE, 1989).


While there are few scientific studies to support the claim that ozone effectively removes odors, it is plausible that some odorous chemicals will react with ozone. For example, in some experiments, ozone appeared to react readily with certain chemicals, including some chemicals that contribute to the smell of new carpet (Weschler, 1992b; Zhang and Lioy, 1994). Ozone is also believed to react with acrolein, one of the many odorous and irritating chemicals found in secondhand tobacco smoke (US EPA, 1995).
If used at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone applied to indoor air does not effectively remove viruses, bacteria, mold, or other biological pollutants.

Some data suggest that low levels of ozone may reduce airborne concentrations and inhibit the growth of some biological organisms while ozone is present, but ozone concentrations would have to be 5 - 10 times higher than public health standards allow before the ozone could decontaminate the air sufficiently to prevent survival and regeneration of the organisms once the ozone is removed (Dyas, et al.,1983; Foarde et al., 1997).


Even at high concentrations, ozone may have no effect on biological contaminants embedded in porous material such as duct lining or ceiling tiles (Foarde et al, 1997). In other words, ozone produced by ozone generators may inhibit the growth of some biological agents while it is present, but it is unlikely to fully decontaminate the air unless concentrations are high enough to be a health concern if people are present. Even with high levels of ozone, contaminants embedded in porous material may not be affected at all.
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html

Here is the current list of banned air purifiers in California for ozone production from the California Air Resource Board




Potentially Hazardous Ozone Generators Sold as Air Purifiers

Updated December 2, 2008


Some devices that are advertised as "air purifiers", air cleaners, or ozone generators purposely emit large amounts of ozone, the main component of smog! Not only are such ozone generators ineffective at cleaning indoor air, but breathing ozone poses serious health risks. The Air Resources Board recommends that these ozone generators not be used.

The following is a partial list of portable air cleaners sold as "air purifiers" or ozone generators that can intentionally emit ozone. This list includes air cleaners sold primarily for residential use, plus some for commercial, in-vehicle, and personal use. Inclusion on this list is based on information available at the time of review. These devices have not been tested by the Air Resources Board using the test protocol required by the recently approved regulation, and until the testing required by the regulation is completed, we do not know if the ozone emitted will exceed the recently adopted 0.050 ppm standard. Exclusion from this list is not to be construed as endorsement by the California Air Resources Board. In-duct systems and other non-portable ozone generators are not listed here, but may generate potentially harmful levels of ozone.

This list (updated December 1, 2008) will be updated periodically as information becomes available.


Air-Zone (All models)

XT-120, XT-240, XT-400, XT-800, XT-2000, XT-4000, XT-6000, XT-14000, XT-28000

Airdow (ADA Air Purifier and Air Cleaner (Xiamen) Co., Ltd)

ADA 311, 377, 388, 705, 706, 708, 717, 728, 729, 737, 739, 767

Allied Products/Biofeedback Instrument Corporation
Kleen-Air King II Model 1004A, 1004, 1004 SP, 1007
Alpine

Living Air Classic, XL-15, Breeze AT, LA1, LA2, Peak, Flair, Fresh Air, Personal Air Purifier

Applied Ozone Systems

CS-1, CS-2

APSNA - Air & Water Purification Systems North America (All models)

FA1, C3, BAT, F2

Aqua Sun Ozone International

Model-(100, 202A, 206A, 217A, 308, 700, 5000), Model-2500/Kleenair, Model-2500R/Kleenair

Aran Aqua Pollution Control Systems

SS-Series Aranizers (SS-1, SS-3X, SS-4X, SS-6, SS-8, SS-10)
NS-Series Aranizers (NS-3, NS-5, NS-6, NS-8, NS-10)

Better Living

Sun Aire Air Purifier

BioTech Research

EdenPURE Area Air Purifier, EdenPURE Deluxe Air Purifier

Biozone (All models)

50, 100, 102, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, Travel Aire 50V, Travel Aire 250T

Breathe Pure

QOZO-100, QOZO-500

Capital Vanguard Co., Ltd
HV-(107, 109, 202, 202A, 203A, 205, 206A, 207, 207A, 210A, 217A, 308), HV-202I+O3
Carspa Technology Co., Ltd
Car0100, Car0300, Car0400
Cliff Scott Enterprises (All models)

CSE 100, CSE 101

Codyson

CD-100, CD-120, CD-210, CD-200, CD-2120, CD-2200

Crystal Air (All models)

CA45-2, DC Pro (200, 450, 970), Multizone 280, Pro (420, 700, 3400-1, 3600-1), UV Pro 550

Csonka (All models)

Original AirCare, Super AirCare, Pro AirCare, Automotive AirCare, Facility Control System AirCare, Car Fresh AirCare, Desk Fresh AirCare, Turbo Fresh AirCare

Detail King
PT-109
EcoQuest (Most models)
Fresh Air, Living Air Classic, Breeze AT, Flair, Fresh Air To Go, EcoBox

Ecozone

H-50, XL-250 SH, TS-50, M10

Ez-com System, Inc.
EA-8705, EW-300, EW600, EW-900, GW-250
Enaly (Most models)

OZX-A200B, OZX-A500B, OZX-A3500, OZX-A700, OZX-7000B

Fresh-Aire (Triatomic Environmental, Inc.)
T-30UV
HealthWay Home Products, Inc.

Healthway Air Deodorizer HW-DE01

Hefei Sensing Electronic Co., Ltd.
Ozone Air Purifier
Imperial Products
Air Fresh G-100, Moonland Desktop Ozone Purifier, SL-002 High Output Ozone Air Purifier, XJ-1000 Ionic Air Purifier, XJ-3000B Professional Ozone Air Purifier
Jenesco (All models)

DC-12, PT101, PT101W, PT109, PT109W, PRO-4, PRO-8, FM-1,FM-2

King Air & Water Purification Corporation

See Allied Products

Lenntech (All models)

Series 3000

LightningAir

LA-1XP/2500, LightningAir Plus 5PX series, LA-2SPX

Longevity Resources

ZipZone, EnviroPro (420, 700, 3400, 3600, 3600-5)

Matsutek Enterprises Co., Ltd.

ION737, AR-150, CA-320, CA-721

Nanbai
N206a, N208
Natural Air

Natural Air

Nature's Air

NA-2

O3ozone
DC Pro 450, Pro 700, DC Pro 970, UV Pro 550
Odatus (All models)

Odatus II

Oxytech Research (All models)
MGA-500, MGA-1000, MGA-2000, MGA-3500
Ozomax, Ltd.
Ozo Fresh 30
Ozone Environmental Technologies

Uvonair (1000, 3000, 5000)

Ozone Solutions (All models)

MZ-280, MZ-450, MZ-950, OMZ-420, OMZ-700, OMZ-1000, OUV-550, OMZ-2500, OMZ-3400

Peaceful Breeze
Small Room Air Purifier Model 388
Peak Pure Air

Peak O3 Air Purifier

Prozone (All Models)

PZ5-A, PZ2-2A, The Prozone (Purifier), Whole House Twister, PZ6-AIR, Whole House Air and Surface Purifier

Pure 'n Natural (Certain models)

OZ-2000 ( Odor Zapper ), Sani-Mate AS-250-B, NA50 Deodorizer/Air Freshener

QCH Tradelink

Medi-Aire

Quantum Pure Aire

AccuAire ALS-750, ALS-1500, ALS-3000, RMS-100, ClassicAire (CS-1000, CS-2000, CS-3500), XP-350

Queenaire Technologies, Inc.

QT Storm, QT Thunder, QT Thunder-24, QT Tornado, QT Cyclone, Newaire Plugin

Rain Fresh Air

RFA5000, RFA3500

RainbowAir (All models)

Newaire Plug In, Activator (250, 500, 1000)

Shenyang Bodycare Ozone Research Insitute
UV_Portable, UV_Wall Mount

SpringAir (Certain models)

CS-1, CS-2

Sun Aire

see Better Living

Surround Air (Two models only)

Multi-Tech XJ-3000C, Multi-Tech II XJ-3000D

Taoture International Enterprises, Inc.

OZX-A200B, OZX-A500B

TriMed AirMedic

SBR-1, SBH-1, C12-1, C12-U1

TriStar Enterprises, LLC
PureStar XJ-3000D
Trump Electronic Company

TP-2, TP-3, TP-4, TP-5, TP-6, TCB-913GC

Ultra-Pure (Real Spirit USA, Inc.)
UP-988, UP-899, Pet-Pro 3800
Windchaser (Certain models)

IF-1, IF-2, IMC-1

Zhuhai Large Horse Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.
HMA (300, 300/A, 300/A02, 300/H01, 300/H02, 300/RH, 300/RH01, 300/RH02, 600/O3)
Zontec

Perfect Air Plug-In, PA 100, PA 200, PA 300, O3 Air Purification System
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/o3g-list.htm

[pureairsolution]

"On the issue of air cleaners and ozone safety I would have to agree with Dr. Jonathan Samet of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health when he said in the May 2005 Issue of Consumer Reports: "We can't guarantee safety at any ozone level, so it makes sense not to contaminate your living space."

Well all I can say to that is, do not walk outside because ozone is floating in the air space we all breathe. This is such a strange statement by this man because if he is not sure if ANY level of ozone is safe, then he should give up his practice and find another field.

So many doctors and scientists have become so technical that they have lost their common sense.

If what this man says is true then NO amount of ozone is safe right?

I suggest we all wear gas masks then outside when we WALK because thats what he is suggesting because our entire ecoculture is "contaminated" with ozone OUTDOORS whereever once walks.

The good doctor Samet needs to re-think about what he said.

[pureairsolution]

I see whats happening here.

I already have shown that a "particulate test" done by Breathe Easy did with our Fresh Air and no response was made as to why he did not do the "test" correctly.

I have shown that Breathe Easy is not correct about Dr. Grinspun's article and he never showed WHERE in THAT peer review just how there is a high amount of ozone coming from the system.

I have stated that is one uses an ozone meter ( sensor ) properly the truth of our units will be known.

I have stated that if one LEARNS HOW to use a particulate counter correctly with our units it would be good and not to do a rediculous fradulent "test" as Breathe Easy did.

I have also stated that we market units that leave OUT ozone, but you guys seem to be a bit hung up on the ozone "controversy" that has been introduced for the most part by government agensies that have not told or been told the whole truth related to ozone or OUR technologies and have truly accepted the myth about ozone.


Just make sure you wear masks outside or you will become hypocritical for breathing in the ozone without some form of protection since you say ozone is unsafe at any level.


To Genesis Air: ( Our technology is not to be classified as an "ozone generator...." So the copying and pasting of some page you got from a website that has to deal with ozone generators that emit high levels of ozone is irrelevant.


Low amounts of ozone is good. Too much is not good.

Low amounts of oxygen is good. Too much is not good.

Low amounts of water is good. Too much is not good.

This is not hard to understand.


The California Air Resource Board regarding why they put our technology into the lump of the other companies mentioned is interesting. The admitted that they have not done exhautive tests on our technology but have a knee-jerk reaction to any company that utilizes ozone in their systems.

So it is not as clear and cut as is supposed.

NAMING a company does NOT make the California Air Resource Board correct.

Dr. Marsden met with the board by the way and they are willing to stop calling our technology "ozone generators" and that they are reviewing their stance, however, they have yet to remove the name of EcoQuest and their products from their site.

Of course, since government agencies and other agencies are notorious for dragging their heels, it will be awhile before they remove our company from the list on their website.

[pureairsolution]

California Air Resource - PART 1



Rose Bencomo called from California this past weekend. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) hearing had just taken place and air purifiers were hot news. "People came by our booth," she said, "and they had serious questions. As we answered their questions and explained what the CARB news was all about, they lost their concerns and often made comments such as, 'yes, we know how the government works.' Some even said they should buy some extra air purifiers before the CARB rules made them harder to get." Key Manager Mark Grijalva reports that he and Rose sold eight Fresh Airs. Rose has page of appointments for whole home assessments.



The Los Angeles Times article by Janet Wilson follows the pattern that journalists use. She included all the spicy quotes, all the scare words and all the warnings. As an example, she wrote: "...the [CARB] staff estimated that more than 500,000 people had been exposed to levels of ozone above federally recognized health."



I have no problem with the LA Times reporting that statement. It was, indeed, a quote from the Board. However, the CARB system measures ozone two inches from the grill of the air unit. At that distance from the source, a Fresh Air does produce ozone at a level higher than the federally recognized health limit of .05 parts per million. But I know of no Fresh Air user who sleeps with his nose two inches from the front of the machine. EcoQuest air unit users typically place their units in a large room up on a shelf. Given the opportunity to disperse throughout the room or home, the ozone in the air is likely to dilute down to .02 parts per million or less. The air smells fresher and the bacteria, mold, yeast and virus levels go way down.



One individual who attended the hearing said the CARB had a small number of letters of complaint (she told me the number was 30 or 60), whereas the EcoQuest people had thousands of positive letters. The Times article expressed the EcoQuest point of view in several paragraphs:



Many direct marketers spoke at the air board's public hearing Thursday in Diamond Bar [a town in Southern California]. Most, however, identified themselves not as salespeople but as consumers who said their own health, that of asthmatic children, their aging parents and even depressed pets had been dramatically improved after use of ozone purifiers sold by EcoQuest, a Tennessee-based company.

"God gave humans these air purifiers, and you should not take away that gift," said Debra Perkins of Corona, weeping as she told how she felt the product had improved her mother's breathing. Perkins said later that she was speaking not because she sells the devices, but because she believed so strongly as a registered nurse that they had helped her and her family. She said she first became a distributor after seeing them displayed at the Los Angeles County Fair. She could not afford the $700 price, but was told she could get them at reduced cost if she sold them.

Allen Johnston of EcoQuest said his company was not allowed under Food and Drug Administration laws to make claims that the product cured illnesses or eliminated germs of any kind, and it doesn't. But he said studies had shown that injecting some ozone into homes could reduce levels of germs. "Ozone is both safe and effective, and widely endorsed by safety organizations," he said.



The article then went on to quote the anti-ozone people:



Such claims are false, said UC Irvine inhalation toxicologist Michael Kleinman. "Ozone is a toxic contaminant, and does cause significant adverse health impacts," he said.

"There are thousands of peer-review studies showing ozone is dangerous," said Bonnie Holmes-Gen of the American Lung Assn. of California, who for years led the drive for regulation.

Those studies have linked ozone exposure to increased asthma and other potentially deadly respiratory diseases, permanent lung damage and other health problems. Outdoor ozone produces smog when it reacts with sunlight.


The critics of ozone have never accepted the realities of fresh air. Chippynew.com has used a link on outdoor air freshness for several years to illustrate the similarity between fresh outdoor air and the levels of freshness our products allow a homeowner or workplace manager to achieve.



Allen Johnston was again quoted:



But Johnston, of EcoQuest, said the studies used by the air board staff and conducted by scientists relied on outdoor ozone exposure, or testing conducted in sterile, small chambers that would automatically produce much higher levels of ozone than in a normal, larger home. After Thursday's unanimous vote by the board to ban high-ozone generators, he said, "I feel sad for the people of California."

Johnston said that his company [EcoQuest] would "of course comply" with the new regulation, and that it has other products that it will ... sell here instead. He said California is the company's largest market, both because of its large population and its significant air pollution problems.


Unfortunately, the CARB touted HEPA [High Efficiency Particulate Arresting] filtration systems. [HEPAs remove at least 99.97% of airborne particles .3 micrometers (µm) in diameter or larger.] EcoQuest dealers have found thousands of situations where a Fresh Air or other model satisfied a customer who was not happy with their HEPA. Any comparison boils down to this: filtration and air purification are different. Our process can remove odors; filtration has almost no impact on odors. Our process can remove smoke; filtration is perhaps 50% effective. Our technologies kill microorganisms; filtration does not. Out process makes the air smell and look fresher; filtration helps a little in the appearance of the air, but does very little for the smell. Our process is nearly silent; HEPA filtration is very noisy. And our process uses less energy.



The CARB regulations do not go into effect until 2009. We already have both home and commercial products that are exempt from the CARB ban. Our primary technologies are RCI and ionization. Ozone is third and has become only an option on some units.

[pureairsolution]

Message from the President of EcoQuest


There has been some confusion over a recent newspaper article on what a California Agency (Air Resources Board of California) recently approved that relates to air purifiers beginning in early 2009. As we all know, newspapers sometimes create sensational headlines to attract readers and advertisers at the expense of the accuracy in the facts they report. That is unfortunately what has happened with this article and others like it. In some cases the reporting is inaccurate. In other cases, the personal opinion of individual ARB staff members is being portrayed as the recommendation and decision of the Air Resources Board as a whole. This has created some false impressions.



Here is a quick summary of what really happened as it may affect your business:

1. Nothing has changed! There was no “ban” or “recall” of any current products being sold, or of any products sold in the past. As we approach 2009, we believe responsible people in California are going to want a product with an Away Mode, so you may even see a greater demand.

2. All current and past company products are absolutely safe when the instructions in the Owners Manual are followed. These instructions are included with every unit sold.

3. All current and past company products meet the current Federal EPA Safe Emissions Standard of .05 ppm of ozone in occupied space, which California proposed to adopt effective in early 2009, when used as directed.

California, along with EcoQuest and other manufacturing companies, are now starting the process to develop a standardized testing protocol for this. In the future (sometime in early 2009) our products will carry a certification label that will meet this standard in California, just as we currently do without such a label. If California had a standard right now, we would simply supply our products, pass the certification and grow your businesses. But, there is no standard except the EPA’s Safe Emissions Standard which we meet. Repeating, whatever the California Standard ends up being we will meet it.

4. California is concerned over allowing consumers the option to use higher levels of ozone, even if they meet other Federal Safe Exposure Levels indoors, while the space or area being treated is not being occupied, or when no one is physically present. They think that a small percentage of residents cannot read or understand that they should not use elevated but safe exposure levels when not physically present, and therefore all residents should be denied this right.

Instead, California has proposed that effective early 2009, that purifiers purchased brand new by consumers may not be equipped with this elevated safe ozone option. This does not and will not affect purifiers or cleaning devices sold any time prior to 2009. What this does mean is that manufacturers would not be able to ship, effective in early 2009, consumer purifiers with this elevated optional use benefit. (We call it the “Away Mode.”)

Only industrial or commercial businesses will be allowed to purchase purifiers or air cleaners that can produce any elevated levels above the current Federal Safe Emissions Standard of .05 ppm of ozone in non-occupied consumer space, provided no person is physically present during the operation of the device.

5. EcoQuest, along with several consumer groups, believe that not allowing consumers and option to use otherwise safe elevated levels is a mistake and contrary to the law. Our legal team is still working to have this decision revised. We want to allow a reasonable consumer options here. Consumers should not be forced to pay industrial or commercial businesses hundreds of dollars any time they want a quick or emergency clean-up or sanitization in an unoccupied room. These are the same conditions we have now for consumers.

Regardless, this policy does not take affect until 2009. We are currently in compliance, and EcoQuest products can be sold to all home owners, businesses, and medical facilities with no human fear of an unhealthy or dangerous environmental concern.

6. What we should all be concerned about now is reaching all those who are currently breathing in the toxins and other contaminants, who are using toxic cleaning products to fight germs on surfaces, and who need products like ours that do create healthier indoor environments when used correctly.

That last point is critical. Many great product becomes dangerous when negligently. Our products, just like cars, kitchen knives, and bath tubs, need to be used correctly. OSHA warns of a “gas” that is dangerous. If you get too much of this gas, you must leave the room and get help. This gas is called Oxygen.

7. Finally, if you have a customer who just does not accept these realities, send them to EcoQuest Customer Service at 800-989-2299 and we will work with them.

We understand the challenges you are facing in California, between the media and this regulation. You may feel like your future is uncertain. But rest assured, we have products that meet the California regulation right now, and will continue to pioneer innovative solutions that will be effective for consumers in California. Our active technology flies in the face of traditional, less effective, passive methods.

Competitors, along with mis-informed but well-intentioned officials, have been criticizing new technologies and new ideas since nearly the beginning of time. They certainly have since we started our company. The horse and buggy folks didn’t like automobiles either.

Yet our products have been proven safe and effective over and over again throughout our 20 year history. This is just another one of those times where we have to step up to the plate and prove our products are the safest, most effective answer to the indoor environmental health challenges facing the globe today.



The problem of polluted indoor environments is not going away without our help. Our next generation of products will not be impacted at all by this ruling. Our existing products will be made to comply in most cases. Our solution is still the answer, and will continue to work with the people of California to ensure consumers have access to our technology.



Thank you for your commitment in the face of adversity,

Mike Jackson

Founder and CEO – EcoQuest International

09/28/07


Indoor Environmental Health News

—EcoQuest Products Still Available For California Consumer’s Benefit—


Decision by California Air Resource Board Just One Step In A Process – EcoQuest Products Are Still Available For Sale And Use In California.


EcoQuest products are proven in University studies to be an effective tool in
the fight against indoor air and surface contamination. The decision by the
California Air Resource Board (ARB) does not impact the sale of
EcoQuest’s products at the present time, nor does it prevent the use of
EcoQuest’s Residential Air Purification technology products. Here are some
items to be aware of.


• The ARB has not asked that consumers stop using the purifiers they
currently own. In fact, it was even suggested during the deliberation of the
proposed regulation that people who have received significant benefit from
the purifiers that may be impacted by the regulation after October 2009
should maybe buy several units so they are not without their purifier.


• There is no recall nor has there ever been a recall suggested.


• Fresh Air by EcoQuest Air Purification Products for use in occupied space
and operating in the Normal Mode comply with the intent of this regulation.


• EcoQuest products are not designed to raise the levels of ozone in occupied
spaces above .05 ppm when properly used.


• The CA Air Resource Board banned the sale of ozone generators used in
homes which exceed .05 ppm of ozone.


• This ban applies to products generating very high levels of ozone, what we
typically call “Away Mode” levels in EcoQuest Residential products, or
levels produced by commercial-type products.


• What is no longer acceptable for consumers is the ability to raise the level
of ozone above .05 ppm in unoccupied spaces to remove odors, or sanitize a
room while no humans or pets are in the environment. On EcoQuest
Products this is called the “Away Mode”. The ARB Staff concluded that
consumers are not intelligent enough to use this feature properly.


• The ARB recognizes the benefits of elevated levels of ozone and even has
made a provision for the “Industrial Use” of ozone in hotels and other
commercial environments when the space is unoccupied.


• This new regulation does not take effect until October 2009 to permit the
establishment of test protocols, product changes and to allow manufacturers
to sell any remaining product within the state of California which doesn’t
comply with the new regulation.


EcoQuest is a forward thinking company and has technologies under
development that will continue to effectively clean air and environments and
meet the California regulations designed to go into effect in late 2009. We
look forward to an ongoing relationship that provides the most advanced
home purification systems, excellent customer service and satisfaction, and
the very best in Business Owner support.


About EcoQuest International EcoQuest International, a healthy living technology company, is the world’s largest distributor of “Certified Space” indoor air purification and water purification systems. EcoQuest’s flagship ActivePure technology, proven in university studies to eliminate up to 99.99% of mold, viruses,
and bacteria on surfaces, recreates natural processes to actively improve the environment indoors in more than five million homes and businesses around the globe. Based in Greeneville, TN, EcoQuest employs over 400 people, and has a sales force of nearly 100,000 active distributors around the globe. For more information visit www.EcoQuest.com.


FAIR ENOUGH.

From,

PureAirSolution

[pureairsolution]

Dear Consumers:

Ozone is criticized from time to time. In defense of ozone, I've chosen half a dozen very pristine places to talk about.


Waikiki Beach in Hawaii, one of the most famous, most visited beaches in the world. Measure the ozone at noon on a sunny day. It will be .03 or .04 part per million, sometimes higher! The air smells fantastic and is considered to be very healthful.




Padre Island National Seashore, a 100-mile long beach and dune region near Corpus Christi, Texas. Each day’s ozone level will be determined by the brightness of that day’s sunshine. On an overcast day it might be .02 ppm. It will be .04 ppm on a clear day.




The viewing platform at Mount Rushmore National Monument, Rapid City, South Dakota. You guessed it—.04 ppm on a sunny day. That is considered a natural, healthy ozone level for fresh, outdoor air.


Glacier National Park, Montana (connects at the Montana border to Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta, Canada. Wonderful, refreshing air

every day… and what does it contain?

You guessed it… .04 ppm of ozone.






Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Here’s another fresh and wonderful place. We have a lot of beautiful places in America. All of these places have ozone-freshened air every day.




The Grand Canyon, Arizona—yet another example of God’s glory and nature’s perfection.

These places are known for fabulous vistas and clean, healthy air. The summer air in Arizona is hot and dry. Around the beaches it tends to be humid and windy. In northern Montana and southern Alberta the air is crisp. All of these fantastic places have natural O3 levels that go up in the bright daytime hours and down at night.

Ozone is created by the UV component of sunlight as the sun shines through our atmosphere (21% oxygen, less than one ten-thousandth of a percent is ozone). This is basic high school science.

Indoors (in the absence of sunlight) the O3 levels approach zero unless outside air is vented in through open windows or an air exchange system. A primary solution for Sick Buildings is to vent in outside air (which contains ozone in the daytime). Doesn’t that tell you loudly and clearly that ozone is okay?

Our solution is to reconstitute the indoor air through electronic means—by adding low levels of ozone and high levels of ionization to the air. We call this Air Purification. The result is similar to venting in outside air (except no dust, pollution and odors!). This is totally different from filtration.

Common sense and the user's manual both tell users not to run the unit on an unnaturally high setting. Residential and business customers who use purifiers don't want high levels of O3. No one does. It's just a matter of making indoor air fresh like outdoor air...with a side benefit of removing odors and smoke. Even non-smokers occasionally burn food or warm up the atmosphere of their home with a fireplace, and visitors sometimes come in with smoke on their clothing.

One EcoQuest user says, "My neighbor and his little girls came to my door to sell me some Christmas wrapping paper. He sniffed the air and said, 'Your house smells great!' The UPS man also said my house has a great freshness to it. My carpenters and my occasional housekeeper like my air purifiers. If I didn't have an air purifier, my house would smell like other people's houses. There would be hints of mold, food, sweat, smoke, pets, and what have you."

This gentleman writes: "My grandson visits and sleeps here. His mother and I are always confident that the air is fresh. Cody doesn't need to visit me to get fresh air. His mother has operated two air purifiers in her home since the day he came home from the hospital."

Will you hear some criticisms about air purifiers every now and then? Yesl Various political entities, especially in California, have spoken out against ozone (their bias comes from the famous LA smog problem; ozone gets blamed for what is really an unburned hydrocarbon issue). Bad stories scare some customers; but unfair remarks bolster the resolve of others who know the benefits they've seen in their homes. A dozen years ago the airwaves were full of stories that cell phones would cause brain cancer. That was never true either.

Some EcoQuest units do not produce ozone. Others are ozone-optional. Each customer makes up his own mind based on the circumstances within his own home or building. A home with strong odors would want a little ozone because it's so highly effective for controlling odors. A home with open windows might prefer to keep the ozone control "off" or "normal."

We support solid science and common sense. Studies from two major universities have helped to document and quantify the benefits of our products.

Good luck to all.

[pureairsolution]

Our company is sometimes asked about articles and other public commentary. One quote from USA TODAY was written by Elizabeth Weise: "Popular and expensive ionizing air cleaners — a staple of late-night infomercials — could expose users to lung-damaging levels of ozone, and they do a poor job of actually cleaning the air, according to a study in the May issue of Consumer Reports."

The Consumer Reports magazine of that year did not mention EcoQuest or any of our products. The bad news is that ozone was mentioned as a bad thing.

Ozone has been called bad for twenty years. This has kept most companies from adding ozone to their air systems. Their failure to do this has allowed us to remain in the lead when it comes to effectiveness. Properly adjusted ozone is a wonderful features of our technology. There is no reason for concern because (a) the levels we advocate are similar to healthy outdoor air and (b) millions of people have lived with this technology for years with no problems.

Article that pop up from time to time — and the commentary that follows -- cause us to lose some sales.

This is the way of life and business. Every task we undertake must be accomplished in an environment of risk versus reward. It usually follows that the greater the risk, the greater the reward. We become stronger by overcoming obstacles and, in the long run, we even benefit from having our weaker clients and dealers weeded out. The Law of Survival is at play. The strong will become stronger for having struggled.

We have technologies that come directly out of the Space Age (Radiant Catalytic Ionization, Photo-hydro Ionization, hydroxyl generation—all tied to UV light effects). These technologies are not being challenged. We give our users the option to turn their ozone up, down or off. A family or business can get the cleanest, safest, and healthiest indoor air than by adding our technologies to their homes and buildings.

We have peer-reviewed studies from two universities. These studies address individual issues such as mold control, bacteria kill rates, and particulate control. They also address overall indoor effectiveness. We know our technologies work because of testing, customer satisfaction and personal knowledge.

[pureairsolution]

Our electronic air purification technologies have been around for twenty-plus years and several times each year we read or see attacks against indoor applications of ozone. Some publicity is local, some is regional and occasionally it comes in a national forum such as Consumer Reports magazine or USA Today article. Whether our company is mentioned or not, the matter has to be understood and dealt with.

We always lose some sales and some dealers. The best we can do is explain what is happening...

The starting point is that we must not engage in any debate -- by phone, letter, email or interview -- with the news media. No matter what we might say, no matter what evidence we might offer, the radio station or newspaper reporter will be delighted to have a dialogue going. We can present absolute proof and no-loose-ends logic and "the other side" can always find an expert or pseudo expert (someone with a title or high position) to express a different opinion.

We call our basic platform "The Rock."

Ozone occurs naturally in healthy outdoor environments. We know this and no expert in the world will say it is dangerous to breathe the air at Waikiki Beach or at the base of Mount Rushmore. Measurements have shown the typical outdoor ozone levels to be .02 to .04 parts per million. Sometimes a person with a good nose can smell the ozone. Mostly, however, we simply call the air "fresh" and "fantastic." We had a day like that yesterday here in Orlando and today is fantastic, too!

Lacking the sunlight effect, indoor air tends to be depleted of ozone (unless a lot of sunshine is beaming through windows) ... so twenty years ago our company started selling a small electronic device that would bring the indoor levels up to a par with what is normal in the mountains. Ions, another healthy technology, was added to the process. He launched his company as Alpine Air Products.

More recently, we adopted a technology that was developed for NASA. Our air purifiers are "Space Certified," a designation granted to us by the Space Foundation.

The article that follows is typical of what we see. It refers to "potentially harmful ozone" and it could just as well refer to "potentially harmful electricity" or "potentially harmful water." Millions of people have died from too much water, but we are unaware of a single case where a person died from ozone. Logically, it is clear that the "potential" harm from water is far greater than the "potential" harm from ozone. The EPA and OSHA have established ozone safety levels. We agree and comply 100% with their advice.

When ozone gets beyond the safety levels, it gets offensive and people avoid it. I have several air purifiers operating in my home, but I wouldn't be happy if the ozone levels got higher than .04. Why? Because my nose and lungs would tell me that's more than I want. We advise our customers to set their units well below the levels that would typically be considered bothersome.

We also have technologies that use the space-type technologies and generate only trace amounts of ozone. I have an Everest unit in secretary's office. Also, I can turn my Fresh Air unit to a mode that also limits ozone production to a trace.

Some of our units (including Fresh Air) allow the customer to control his ozone all the way from zero up to a level that can be used to clean an environment when the room or building is empty. An automatic reset device on our Fresh Air model allows the unit to run on high for 2, 4, 6 or 8 hours and then reset to the setting of choice.

The 2006 article talks about a state sponsored survey that will ask 1,800 homeowners how they like their air purifiers. I hope they do that! Our marketing technique is to let customers decide in advance, and our level of customer satisfaction is extremely high.

The article says that not all the machines are harmful. That's good to see.

The article quoted Dr. James Marsden from Kansas State University, one of two institutions that is doing efficacy tests for EcoQuest (with dramatic results -- the studies have been peer reviewed and will be published in at least two scientific journals). Marsden's comments: "Even with the older machines, the [ozone] levels are very low. No one is selling products with dangerous levels of ozone."

The 2006 article was triggered by a customer who used a Fresh Air for eight months. Although her credit card bounced, she thought the machine made a difference. Time went by and the customer refused to return her unit; so the dealer filed a complaint with the small claims court. A judge decided that the customer owed 50% for the time that had been used. The dealer got her used unit back but never received the judgment. The customer complained and now there's an article to deal with.

The article's final sentence quotes an engineering professor from the University of Texas, "Ozone is a harmful gas, period. There is no debate about ozone."

I suppose this engineer has never taken his family to the Padre Island National Seashore between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, Texas. It's a beautiful natural place and the ozone level is .04 parts per million almost every day of the year. Sometimes it is a little higher, sometimes a little less. I've been there many times.

Most people will be satisfied with this answer and not be concerned about low levels of ozone.

[pureairsolution]

Here is an interesting audio link about our technology and how we go about business:


http://www.activtek.net/Portals/0/activtek050509.mp3

http://www.normi.org

Again, I am not looking to argue or fight on these boards. If I do come across that way I apologize. I do hope that we can together look at all sides as fairly as we know how and then let time and ozone...I mean, patience...take its course.

If there are HVAC contractors who may wish to contact me feel free to do so at:

PureAirSolution@aol.com

Its hard to establish trust or a relationship over the internet.

I do hope to talk with curious contractors over the phone or face to face.

Thank you.

[pmeunier]

"A primary solution for Sick Buildings is to vent in outside air (which contains ozone in the daytime). Doesn’t that tell you loudly and clearly that ozone is okay?"

No, that sort of reasoning is called a fallacy. It just means that outside air with a small quantity of ozone is not as bad as stale air with lots of indoor pollutants. It doesn't mean ozone is good, it just means that it's a lesser concern for most people. Filtering the outside air with carbon filters to remove ozone and other contaminants, like I do, is even better. I dehumidify so there's no mold smell to mask with ozone because I've addressed the root cause. IMO if you use ozone, you might as well spray Lysol, it also masks odors. My house "smells great" if you want to go by that criterium, but it's a weak one. There are lots of nasty things humans can't smell.

If your product kills bacteria, what will it do to my sensitive lungs? Yes I go outside for walks, but it's a limited, tolerable exposure to ozone. I don't spend my day outside. You can't say that because someone is OK walking outside for a while, then it's OK to be exposed to ozone 24/7. As a comparison, think about sunburns.

We're drowning in your posts, but I think that's just browbeating on your part and abusing the forums to display your marketing material (which is full of fallacies) and attempting to recruit people in a publicity campaign. I hope nobody gets mislead by it. Passion is nice but doesn't mean one is correct.

[breathe easy]

pas
Unfortunately, the "cutting and pasting" in your posts goes on. We are very familiar with the Ecoquest marketing literature since we have been exposed to it several times before.

I am not surprised at your messianic zeal in support of your products and your company. For some reason, Ecoquest/Activtek dealers often have this approach. It is also not surprising that you have the opinion that everyone is against your technology because they either have something wrong with them or they are "ignorant." For example, the EPA supposedly made some statements about ground zero so you can't believe what they say about air cleaners that produce ozone? Or the American Lung Association supposedly bought some of your products so they must approve of them all?

What I am surprised about is your total lack of intellectual curiousity. If I were selling your products, I would read everything I could on the products from every source. It seems that you only read what someone from the company or your upline feeds you and you believe it verbatim. It is clear that you have read none of the studies by the authors I have cited above. If you had you had, you would have understood that the tests I conducted on the Ecoquest "Fresh Air" with terpenes were not unique or made up. Anybody with a particle counter, an ozone meter, some Pine Sol and an ozone generating "air cleaner" could come up with the same results. I have conducted tests like this many times. Other researchers have done the same. In fact, at least two universities use this test in the their undergraduate indoor air classes to show the effects of indoor air chemistry.

Your explanation that the particle counts have to do with air movement is totally wrong. The high particle counts are a result of the terpenes reacting with the ozone to create ultrafine particles.

In my opinion, there are two surprises in the tests.
1. The ionizing component of the Fresh Air device is relatively ineffective. I thought it would have dropped the particle counts more.

2. The unit produces a relatively high amount of ozone in the PCO mode only. This is supposed to be the setting where it produces "no ozone."

One other thing worth mentioning is that this technology was not developed by NASA. Ecoquest did pay to participate in the "Space technology" advertising program.

[genesis]

To Genesis Air: ( Our technology is not to be classified as an "ozone generator...." So the copying and pasting of some page you got from a website that has to deal with ozone generators that emit high levels of ozone is irrelevant.

If is not to be classified as an ozone generator then what is it. It uses and UV lamp that is below the 254 nm bandwidth @ 185 nm which is purposely producing ozone to interact with a doped PCO to create a byproduct to oxidize the air. I hate to tell you when a catalyst becomes loaded it becomes inactive over a period of time depending on the demand. Where is all of the ozone going now that is being produced from the UVV lamp? In the airstream. And if there isn't a fresh air source it will accumulate in an occupied space over time. And indoors it reacts with everything. If the levels are not high enough you get incomplete oxidation which leads to the formation of aldehydes and other byproducts. I suggest you read this paper from Berkeley.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/.../EETD-BRS.html

What I have not seen discussed in RCI technology is the degradation of the catalyst. Because unless they have solved the problem with the binder for the TIO2 the catalyst will degradate under uvgi and the TIO2 will fall off leaving you with high levels of ozone, an inactive PCO and incomplete oxidation resulting in aldehyde production as a by-product.

Another thing I haven't seen addressed is the recharging of contaminates in a real life situation and not in a lab, not with a measured amount of contaminates in a controled situation. With the combination of technologies that RGI uses (ionization and uvgipco) the clumping of particulate makes the contaminates larger in size thus the oxidation process takes longer. There isn't enough time to oxidize it in the air and the clumping process makes it fall on to a surface to wait to be oxidized. And the surface of say a school desk is continually recharging with contaminates waiting to be oxidized. I don't understand how this could be a good situation.

Here is a link to a white paper that discusses what I manufacture and design and Ecoquests product both in a positive light. I know the guy that wrote this and he is a big fan of photoplasma technology.
http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/R...=jees&volume=6

[pureairsolution]

To Genesis Air:

I read the article you posted:

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/.../EETD-BRS.html

He is doing what all ozone saysayers are doing. This is a problem. He is blaming ozone for sick building syndrome and he is not correct. It is, again, man-made pollution that comes from vehicles and smokestacks that is the culprit, not ozone.

"According to Apte, “Based on patterns of associations between building-related symptoms and certain volatile organic compounds indoors, we hypothesized that increasing levels of outdoor ozone would lead to higher prevalence of building-related symptoms among the occupants within a building.”

Their analysis of the BASE data shows that the prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms in a building increases linearly with increasing concentration of outdoor ozone. It also shows that the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and organic acids including pentanal, hexanal and nonanal increased with increasing outdoor ozone. All of these are known sensory irritants, and formaldehyde is a known carcinogen."

Again, the firefighter ( ozone ) is being blamed for the fire ( pollution. )

Ozone is not pollution my friends.

""It also shows that the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and organic acids including pentanal, hexanal and nonanal increased with increasing outdoor ozone."

Not true. With increasing outdoor hydrocarbons indoor concentrations of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and organic acids including pentanal, hexanal and nonanal increased."

As I previously stated, "...the more hydrocarbons there are, the more ozone is produced....ozone is always present in levels consistent with the hydrocarbons ( the real smog and real pollution..) levels, therefore the common assumption is perpetrated that ozone is the culprit."

The "findings" by Michael Apte are not entirely truthful. Get rid of hydrocarbons outside and, guess what, ozone will no longer be blamed for anything. When ozone levels RISE due to man made pollution like hydrocarbons, THEN the problem exists that you gentlemen are talking about.

Please tell us how formadehyde and acetaldehyde can somehow be produced by LOW LEVELS ( not high levels...) LOW LEVELS of activated oxygen.

"Can't blame nature for doing its job!"

“The study estimated that removing both risk factors—higher ozone in outdoor air and polyester/synthetic filters—could reduce BRS by 26 to 62 percent,” says Apte."

OH!!!!! Tell us WHAT would happen if hydrocarbons were removed out of the air outdoors? The truth comes out that its HIGHER amounts of ozone that is not good.

Thats what I have been saying all along.

Apte never said that low amounts of ozone could do this.

Stop blaming the firefighters ( ozone ) for increasing the water ( ozone ) when the fire ( hydrocarbons ) gets out of control!

Stop saying that low levels of ozone is harmful, because that is a rediculous assertion.

Low levels of air, water, ozone and wine are perfectly safe.

High levels of oxygen, water, ozone and wine are not.

Simple.

You guys will not budge from what your teachers have told you. Try to think for yourself and stop allowing others to do it for you with your mind shut off.

[genesis]

The "findings" by Michael Apte are not accurate and true.

Facts suck don't they. There are many other peer reviewed papers to back Michaels up that are not from UC Berkeley or the Department of Energy that are not part of the big ozone conspiracy.