In the absence of reasonable proof, yes.
Originally Posted by zachhvac
A great example is silicone breast implants. Millions were paid out to the "victims". There was a time when virtually everyone who had casual knowledge of the topic knew that those things cause health problems when they leak. (mass sociogenic illness - can be likened to placebo) But years later very large and long term studies came out completely debunking the notion. They are safe, period, despite the millions who claim otherwise.
They same goes for unproven claims about UV. Show me a list of 100 customers that rave. Show me a 1000. In the absence of proof they can easily be explained away as placebo. I can produce a long list of customers whose UV light was down when I arrived and they had no idea because it did nothing to begin with.
Of course, completely understand. McGill University/Lancet Medical Journal was the first large study and is the basis for the ASHRAE Handbook Chapter on UVC. This was a third party independent test using our products. I do have several research studies that were third party tests, (EPA, Natromed, Canada Health, etc.) However, I will have to email them as they are too large for posting on this site.
Originally Posted by Irascible
If you would like to email me email@example.com
I didn't intend this discussion to be about sanuvox, my main intent was to recommend a product to the person here having issues with dirty sock syndrome.
Claims can only be made when your products can produce enough dwell time and/or UV intensity to destroy a particular biological contaminant. When every known contaminant's UV dosage to destroy the DNA/RNA is known, most good companies can take measurements from the distances of their lamps to determine UV microwatts emitted. Multiply by dwell time and you can calculate what percentage of any biological contaminant you can destroy on each passing of air.
Example, a standard residential coil clean lamp emits a little over 575microwatts/cm2 at 6 inches from the lamp. This is at no airflow, you throw in 500FPM airflow and the fouling effect and cooling effect on the lamp and you now have only 270microwatts/cm2 at 6 inches. Given you have 6 inches of coverage before and after the lamp you can calculate the dwell time times the intesity of UV produced and you can calculate your kill rate. Since it is fairly low UV intensity produced 270microwatts/cm2 you are not likely to do much damage to anything in the air stream. Thus, these lamps are only good at irradiating the coil because even though its low UV dosage, you calculate 24/7 of UV light shining on the coil and the UV dosage increases rapidly to where under 12 minutes you can achieve a 99% destruction on B. Subtilis on the coil, where B. Subtilis requires 22,000 microwatt dosage of UV to destroy the DNA. Now B.Subtilis is not harmful to humans, but other contaminants like TB, influenza, etc are and require less than 22,000microwatts to destroy. This is where most companies stop reading in their research. They go out an say my stick light UV light can destroy anything and everything... and never say required amount of time to achieve destruction on a surface. They try to mis-lead and not let the consumer know that this is on a surface kill and airborne contaminants will merely get a nice suntan.
So if you are dealing with an airborne contaminant, you have no luxury of time to destroy the DNA/RNA so you have to increase the intensity. On our Air Purifiers, we have a dosage of 16,800microwatts/cm2 every split second being emitted. Multiply that times the length of the lamp - parallel to the airflow - and the dosage of UV can reach over 22,000microwatts/cm2 in a matter of milli-seconds, thus truly treating contaminants in moving air.
It's not black box or magic potion. It's simply mathmatical calculations cross referencing contaminants UV dosages and contact time between the lamps and the contaminants taking into account lamp cooling and lamp fouling and aluminum reflection that is used. It's not simple math, but it can be done. On our commercial sizing it takes 4 pages of mathmatical calculations to reach the kill % rate.
We always size our kill rates at lamp end which is 17,000 hours so that the customer knows what they will receive at lamp end life. Soon we will be adding UV meters to each lamp so that there are real UV measurements for the customer to see. Maybe only one or two lamps will need changing after 17,000 hours and not all of them. In addition, it helps take the black box mentality out of the customers perception.
I can provide whatever information you need.
There are many products out there like that in the medical industry or nutrition industry, there's always the exception to the rule.
Originally Posted by Irascible
The one fact you cannot dispute is that UVC has been used in water purification for over 100 plus years and is still used to this day in large, large waste water treatment facilities with over-whelming success of bio-contaminant destruction.
Is it simply the marketing of UV you do not agree with or do you think UV itself does not work?
There's no debating the laws of physics. Intense UV kills all but the most stubborn creepy crawly.
It's definitely the marketing that I have a problem with. The claims are almost always unsubstantiated and sometimes outlandish. To mention water treatment in the same conversation as a Sanuvox like product is itself a kind of marketing. (Well… if we were doing so to sell the product, which your distributors definitely do.) It leads customers to draw incorrect conclusions. If it works for water treatment, it must work for air treatment – right? Not in the least.
Water treatment plants are purpose built to clean and purify water. They can control flow rates, UV intensity and exposure times in ways that an HVAC system will never be able to. HVAC is purpose built to heat, dehumidify and cool air – not purify it. Purifying air requires tremendous UV intensity and low air velocity – so much so that I’ve seen no proof that it’s been accomplished in a commercialized residential product. You have price point to deal with in residential. That tends to be the deal killer. Almost anything can be accomplished were it not for the lack of funds.
I’ll look into your larger reply later. I have to get back to work. J
Completely agree with you in water plants are designed to purify water and HVAC systems aren't. We always have to work within the contstraints of the HVAC system. One thing we compromise on is that we do not treat all the air in a single pass, we treat about 20-25%, but we definitely treat the air that enters our reflection chamber. We require recirculation to treat all the air in a home. You are also right, that price is a big factor in residential applications and that was a conscious act we made. On commercial systems we treat all the air everytime it passes the lamps, but residentially it is not cost effective. As is, our residential air purifiers get installed at $1,500 to $2,000. Since we are unable to slow the air, we have to work with what the HVAC system gives us. When you get a second read the longer post below and it will explain it.
Originally Posted by Irascible
Now, I mention water purification because we use the same principles water purification plants do - have the water run parallel to the lamp - we have the air run parallel to the lamp; have the water inside a cylindrical tube maybe aluminum - we have the lamp enclosed in an aluminum reflection chamber to contain the intensity of the UV.
I would suggest looking at our products - R4000GX - residential air purification and Bio-wall - commercial air purification. You will notice the similarities in design.
My point in all this is to show you that we've taken a completely different approach in UV purification than all other companies out there. We understand the marketing that goes on in the Industry and we try to be as conservative as possible. On commercial coils, we say a customer can achieve a 2-5% energy savings by having a clean coil, where as many of our competitors say you can achieve a 25% energy savings. The industry is full of it and it will probably get worse before it gets better because of the hightened awareness ASHRAE chapter is bringing the industry. We try to be as safe as possible on all our claims.
The EPA neither endorses nor recommends products and we never make that claim as I've seen by many other companies - it is merely a link to show the EPA test that was done on our product. My apologies if it comes across as an endorsement, but we expect our customers to do a little reading. I never say EPA has endorsed or recommends our product, I say the kill %'s we received in the testing.
I do get your point and I agree that the industry needs to mature, but I want to make you aware of what we offer and how we understand where you are coming from. We have to battle the marketing claims out there as well, probably more than any of you since we are in the Industry.
Been enjoying this exchange on my Blackberry between airports
I have to side on Breatheasy's side on the marketing issue. If you are going to claim that your product improves a persons health you have to register it with the FDA for a 5-10 (K). I do know that they have registered some roll around air purification devices for this.
I also know a few weeks back that one of my helpers dropped a 10 ton air handler on my foot. It hurt something fierce. And when he remove the unit the pain went away. Now did that improve my health by removing what was causing the pain? heck yes, my blood pressure went down my foot was soar but the pain was a lot less intense. Now was their a clinical board of doctors there to prove that. NO but the pain and discomfort is gone.
You take an immune compromised person or a chemically sensitive person and put the one biologic or VOC in the environment that shows them discomfort and see what happens to them. Then remove it and watch the pain go away. Its word games and politics. If the powers that be admit that mold ,mycotoxin, endotoxins and certain VOCs are harmful to your health imagine the repercussions with the insurance agencies and the financial implications.
I can show you undeniable proof that MRSA, Staphylococcus aureus, different strains of aspergillus are airborne and making people sick and killing people in hospitals.
I can show you how detrimental ASHRAE 62.2 is for indoor air quality in residential and commercial settings.
UVGI light has its place in IAQ but its not very efficient in an airstream with out very high levels of micro wattage. And still you have the phenomena called DNA repair, the biologic can and will repair itself after a period of time. That's why it has to be totally oxidized in a single pass. That is where PCO comes in. And a PCO has to have its energy source, uv light.
hahaa.. I've never laughed so hard.. not because of your pain but the analogy was brilliant. that's gotta hurt though, 10 ton is no small unit.
Originally Posted by genesis
Did you guys end up getting the Haliburton job in Dallas?
Don't know . Just finished a Corps of Engineer Regional Office at Brook Army and a Cancer Research center in El Paso with 8 foot tall Carrier air handler units. I didn't know Carrier had a tape measure that big.
Originally Posted by Keith Jordan
The Haliburton guy spoke with several UV/PCO companies, I think he was window shopping. However, he never cleans his coils.. I bet they are a mess. The AHU we looked at the door was falling off and it was not even close to being sealed.
Originally Posted by genesis
The carrier units I've seen were 12 feet across on 1 foot high... I thought they were pretty ugly myself.
I understand that you are not writing the marketing literature or designing the website. Sorry about my post if it sounded like I was shooting the messenger.
It just seems to me that you and your company have the expertise and the products to take the high road.
Sounds like a typical DFW unit in August
Originally Posted by Keith Jordan
Still battling DSS. I Just read this article.
Since this was written 3 years ago I'm interested in current use and possible success with Bronz-Glow or AST Electrofin.
p.s. and Technicoat