Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 26 of 26
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    694
    Post Likes
    Randyf

    I really like your approach on the testing of the Molekule device. It does not surprise me that the Austin Air performed better than the Molekule in your tests. I have been using Austin Airs in our bedrooms and my office since 1997.

    One thing you might add to your test is a particle count - especially on particles 0.3 microns and below. Any device that emits ozone will create a chemical reaction with many VOC's - especially terpenes. Terpenes are found in most scented products like you have tried to address. Many devices I have tested when put near a terpene source generate millions of sub-micron sized particles. A typical 0.3um particle count is about 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 per cubic foot. The "air cleaner"/terpene reactions often create 0.3um particle levels over 10,000,000 per cubic foot. That is about twice the level close to a busy freeway. Nice.

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    62
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by breathe easy View Post
    Randyf

    I really like your approach on the testing of the Molekule device. It does not surprise me that the Austin Air performed better than the Molekule in your tests. I have been using Austin Airs in our bedrooms and my office since 1997.

    One thing you might add to your test is a particle count - especially on particles 0.3 microns and below. Any device that emits ozone will create a chemical reaction with many VOC's - especially terpenes. Terpenes are found in most scented products like you have tried to address. Many devices I have tested when put near a terpene source generate millions of sub-micron sized particles. A typical 0.3um particle count is about 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 per cubic foot. The "air cleaner"/terpene reactions often create 0.3um particle levels over 10,000,000 per cubic foot. That is about twice the level close to a busy freeway. Nice.
    Thanks breathe easy. I've found posts over the years very informative (hear and other places). In fact I think I first read about the ozone/terpenes connections from info you provided.
    In my case particulates are very respectable. I've got a Dylos meter and my numbers in the excellent to very good range (according to Dylos anyway). But there is a caveat - Dylos only reads down to .5micron.

    In any case, one thing I'm sure of about the Molekule device -It doesn't emit ozone. It uses UVA leds no UVC emited. Unfortunately, although I haven't totally written of the device, it doesn't seem to do anything.

    On a further not turns out my suspicion last week was correct - The PID meter I used was not calibrated properly.That's not really a game changer though as relative readings were still accurate. The Austin units rocks and the Molekule device is little more than an over sized paper weight. But, perhaps, my unit is defective and I"m going to give MoleKule every benefit to make good. The credentials of the developer are too impressive to discount without giving the company a chance to respond.

    The environmental rental company that provided the PID meter last weekend is making good on re calibrating the device and providing me free usage next weekend. I should have good absolute readings at the point. Part of the difficulty is that the device I used is very high sensitivity measuring in the ppb range. Most PIDs are limitied to ppm ranges.

    I'll be sure to keep this thread informed of all updates - including MoleKule's response or lack thereof.

  3. Likes HVAC_Marc liked this post
  4. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    694
    Post Likes
    Randy

    Unfortunately the Dylos is not going to pick up many of the "air purifier"/terpene reaction particles. They peak at 0.2 microns. There are still many at 0.3 microns but relatively few at 0.5 microns. I have several Dylos particle counters myself. it is a great product but not very effective for this purpose.

    However, it might be interesting to see what the Molekule product does with a more consistent terpene source. If you have an area where you could set up a "test" without affecting your living space, put a small bowl of Pine Sol, the Molekule device and your Dylos in that area. You might come up with some meaningful results. I have done this with several "air cleaners" and have obtained significant particle counts even at 0.5 microns.

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    62
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by breathe easy View Post
    Randy

    Unfortunately the Dylos is not going to pick up many of the "air purifier"/terpene reaction particles. They peak at 0.2 microns. There are still many at 0.3 microns but relatively few at 0.5 microns. I have several Dylos particle counters myself. it is a great product but not very effective for this purpose.

    However, it might be interesting to see what the Molekule product does with a more consistent terpene source. If you have an area where you could set up a "test" without affecting your living space, put a small bowl of Pine Sol, the Molekule device and your Dylos in that area. You might come up with some meaningful results. I have done this with several "air cleaners" and have obtained significant particle counts even at 0.5 microns.
    Great suggestion. The Pine Sol idea is one I never thought of. I'll have use of the PID meter next weekend and will give it a shot.

    But I don't think I made myself clear. The Molekule device does Not generate Any ozone. Unlike most widely PCO devices (RGF) the Molekule does not generate any UVC. It takes UVC to make Ozone that can form the fine particulates that I think you are referring to. The Molekule device used narrow bandwidth UVA Leds, not tubes that are common other PCO devices (that generate UVC) I've seen. No UVC, no ozone, and none of the ozone + terpene interaction that you have alluded to.

  6. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    694
    Post Likes
    Randy
    If the Molekule produces no ozone, all the more reason to do the test.

    The only way the Molekule or any other device could work is by creating Radical Oxygen Species (ROS) - one of which is Ozone. Other major ROS are Hydroxyl Radicals (OH) and Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2). I have never been convinced that they do not create ultra fine particles as well.

    Also, I have not been convinced that the byproducts of the ROS reactions produce H2O and CO2. I continue to believe that they produce formaldehyde (H2CO) - at least as a long- lasting by-product and intermediary.

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    62
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by breathe easy View Post
    Randy
    If the Molekule produces no ozone, all the more reason to do the test.

    The only way the Molekule or any other device could work is by creating Radical Oxygen Species (ROS) - one of which is Ozone. Other major ROS are Hydroxyl Radicals (OH) and Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2). I have never been convinced that they do not create ultra fine particles as well.

    Also, I have not been convinced that the byproducts of the ROS reactions produce H2O and CO2. I continue to believe that they produce formaldehyde (H2CO) - at least as a long- lasting by-product and intermediary.
    Hey breath easy,

    I am aware, as you are,of the substantial work done by Wescheler over the last couple of decades. He has demonstrated, in numerous academic journals, possible harm with partial degradation of VOCs ( to formaldyhide for one) by ambient indoor ozone/hyrodxyls. At least one of these studies actually used (I know you are aware of this) a PCO device circa 2006. How well this translates to current technology has been disputed. Modern devices that can produce enough hyroxyls continuously might(?) have the time to degrade the intermediate compounds.

    HGI/OdorOx offers a unique technology to produce hydroxyls without using a photocatylst. They claim to have addressed the problems with partial VOC breakdown.

    Weschler and Shields have speculated in the environmental chemical literature on the potential health hazards of the myriad of organic oxidation products – aldehydes, ketones, alcohols etc. – resulting from the formation of hydroxyl radicals indoors from natural chemical reactions involving the reaction of ozone with certain types of hydrocarbons with double bonds called alkenes.6 HGI data indicate that, when their systems are used according to operation guidelines, all of these organic intermediates (measured as Total and speciated VOCs) are present in low ppb levels that are similar to the distribution and concentration found in nature.
    http://www.hydroxylnews.com/hydroxyl...ty-and-safety/

    Of course - HGI/OdorOx is a commericial interest out to make a buck but of all the companies I've seen (excepting, somewhat, MoleKule) OdorOx had taken a really thorough approach to these issues. Also OdorOx has some very impressive commercial successes.

    Their claims can be checked. Do a before/after test using FTIR/Gas Chromatography from an independent certified lab. These are accessible to the public for a modest cost (130 -150 per room).
    https://homeaircheck.com/products/

    Regarding safety - hydroxyls appear to be harmless for mammals:
    A comprehensive review of government safety and health databases, including PubMed and the National Library of Medicine resulted in a statement from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that they “cannot find any hard science or research indicating that hydroxyl radical generation is harmful to human health. That applies to both atmospheric and man-made generation” (Colleen Chandler, NIEHS Office of Communications and Public Liaison, August 8, 2010).
    http://www.hydroxylnews.com/hydroxyl...ty-and-safety/
    Also HGI commission a 13 week rat study. See the above link for details.

    The only reason I used the MoleKule device first is (1) It's cheaper (2) I was impressed by the credentials of the developer and results of their 3 rd party testing.
    I was really disappointed by my testing last week. I still think their technology is valid, but they either have serious manufacturing issues or my particular unit is defective.
    I've sent them an email over the weekend and I'll see how it goes.

    I wish all the various manufactures would take the time to test their devices that mimic real world usage and publish the results. Instead of putting their qizmos in a big fish tank with a super high concentration of a single VOC, take a reading in a real residence, run your device for a week or two. Then take another reading.
    That's all that's needed to find out what works, if anything does, and what doesn't.

  8. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Billington Heights, NY
    Posts
    11,814
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by randyf View Post
    I was really disappointed by my testing last week. I still think their technology is valid, but they either have serious manufacturing issues or my particular unit is defective.
    I've sent them an email over the weekend and I'll see how it goes.
    Or it doesnt do what it's supposed to do
    Experience - knowing when to get the hell out of the way and plug your ears. "Don't be a sissy. Turn it on!"
    Poodle Head Mikey - "the world is well populated with the unknowing and the uncaring and the stupid."

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    1
    Post Likes
    Hi Randy, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm Phil Myers, Principal Research Engineer for Molekule. I'd like to ask a couple questions about your testing, and at the same time bring up some potential issues.
    First, a bit of background. You're probably aware of the physics behind sorption filters, including activated carbon, but in a nutshell you have a number of binding sites on the media that can adsorb various volatiles. Further, these sites will have different degrees of affinity for a volatile contaminant, depending on its chemical structure. As contaminants pass through the filter, some percentage of them will find these sites and bind to them. Over time, the filter will become saturated with these trapped contaminants, and it will no longer be effective. But even before the filter is saturated, there is a potential for desorption and release of contaminants. If a chemical with greater affinity for a binding site is introduced, it will displace the existing chemical, resulting in its release into the air. Other perturbations (changes in humidity, temperature, air flow) can likewise result in emission of trapped contaminants from the sorption filter. For these reasons, we recommend PECO air treatment, which chemically breaks down contaminants--the contaminant no longer exists, and hence it can't be re-emitted.
    Now, regarding your test. You stated there was no drop in VOCs in your attic over 1 day of running Molekule. What was the starting TVOC value? The ending? How big is the attic? Is it sealed off from outside air? For the second test, you gave Molekule 30 min and saw no drop in acetic acid levels, judging by the PID signal. What was the starting / ending TVOC value? Again, how big is the living room / kitchen where you tested it? It's hard to say exactly what's going on here, but I think the slow degradation you're observing from the Molekule might have something to do with A) unoptimized flow rate, or B) insufficient time for filter activation. Our testing has shown that the nanofilter will activate over time, so that degradation kinetics greatly improve after running the unit 12 - 24 hours.
    Last, I just wanted to touch on a topic someone else brought up in this forum. Molekule absolutely does not generate ozone. In fact, we actually break down ozone (via photolysis) while running the unit. I think there's a healthy skepticism regarding air cleaners and ozone, given the track record of various older air cleaners in this space. But let me reiterate that this is a fundamentally new technology, with distinct chemistry from existing PCO-based air cleaners, and that's how we are sure that we A) do not produce ozone, and B) will actually reduce ambient ozone levels.
    Thanks again for the feedback, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to help.
    Best,

    Phil Myers, PhD, P.E.
    Principal Research Engineer
    Molekule
    3802 Spectrum Blvd, Ste 143
    Tampa FL 33612

  10. Likes randyf liked this post
  11. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Billington Heights, NY
    Posts
    11,814
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by philipmyers View Post
    Hi Randy, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm Phil Myers, Principal Research Engineer for Molekule. I'd like to ask a couple questions about your testing, and at the same time bring up some potential issues.
    First, a bit of background. You're probably aware of the physics behind sorption filters, including activated carbon, but in a nutshell you have a number of binding sites on the media that can adsorb various volatiles. Further, these sites will have different degrees of affinity for a volatile contaminant, depending on its chemical structure. As contaminants pass through the filter, some percentage of them will find these sites and bind to them. Over time, the filter will become saturated with these trapped contaminants, and it will no longer be effective. But even before the filter is saturated, there is a potential for desorption and release of contaminants. If a chemical with greater affinity for a binding site is introduced, it will displace the existing chemical, resulting in its release into the air. Other perturbations (changes in humidity, temperature, air flow) can likewise result in emission of trapped contaminants from the sorption filter. For these reasons, we recommend PECO air treatment, which chemically breaks down contaminants--the contaminant no longer exists, and hence it can't be re-emitted.
    Now, regarding your test. You stated there was no drop in VOCs in your attic over 1 day of running Molekule. What was the starting TVOC value? The ending? How big is the attic? Is it sealed off from outside air? For the second test, you gave Molekule 30 min and saw no drop in acetic acid levels, judging by the PID signal. What was the starting / ending TVOC value? Again, how big is the living room / kitchen where you tested it? It's hard to say exactly what's going on here, but I think the slow degradation you're observing from the Molekule might have something to do with A) unoptimized flow rate, or B) insufficient time for filter activation. Our testing has shown that the nanofilter will activate over time, so that degradation kinetics greatly improve after running the unit 12 - 24 hours.
    Last, I just wanted to touch on a topic someone else brought up in this forum. Molekule absolutely does not generate ozone. In fact, we actually break down ozone (via photolysis) while running the unit. I think there's a healthy skepticism regarding air cleaners and ozone, given the track record of various older air cleaners in this space. But let me reiterate that this is a fundamentally new technology, with distinct chemistry from existing PCO-based air cleaners, and that's how we are sure that we A) do not produce ozone, and B) will actually reduce ambient ozone levels.
    Thanks again for the feedback, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to help.
    Best,

    Phil Myers, PhD, P.E.
    Principal Research Engineer
    Molekule
    3802 Spectrum Blvd, Ste 143
    Tampa FL 33612

    Please post a full unbroken spectral analysis of the LEDs in the system. Please state the manufacturer of the LEDs. Please provide non-internal well known 3rd party testing sources and documentation.

    While Randy and I dont agree on a few things I believe his tests were pretty inclusive and comprehensive.
    Experience - knowing when to get the hell out of the way and plug your ears. "Don't be a sissy. Turn it on!"
    Poodle Head Mikey - "the world is well populated with the unknowing and the uncaring and the stupid."

  12. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    62
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by philipmyers View Post
    Hi Randy, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm Phil Myers, Principal Research Engineer for Molekule.
    Really appreciate your response. That's great!!.
    If you've followed my post on the two threads discussing the MoleKule device you know I've been fair. Basically I was very impressed by the credentials of the Dr. Godswani, the new PECO technology and the 3rd party testing that's been made available. I even spent a good amount of time defending your products, based on information provided by MoleKule and other sources, from a number of silly baseless criticisms. But I've made clear from the get go that objective testing of VOC levels is the final arbiter.

    Some history:
    I purchased a (supposivley 4* Green rated) Condo in April of 2015. Didn't move in until July. Noticed odors in April. Was told it was nothing to worry about (Home inspection company and others). Odors persisted, although diminised, after I moved in. That's when I educated myself in IAQ issues. I've got physical science/enginerring background so I can usually get the gist of technical journal articles. I've also got a good nose of promotional PR truth/bull**** which All companies use.

    Did a Gas Chromatography test via Prism Labs https://homeaircheck.com/products/) in Oct 2015.
    TVOCs level were 2200ng/liter. Should be under 500.
    Excessive level of fragrence compounds (pinines, limonese, carenes) and solvents. Formaldehyde was elevated also. Suspect previous tenants had a spill and tried to mask
    with fragrances, but don't know for sure.

    After much cleaning, ventilating did another Gas Chromatography (used Fike Analytical this time) test in March of 2016. Levels were 1400ng/liter.
    Don't know if I had real a abatement or just differences between the two companies.

    Last Gas Chromatography was done Feb. 2017 with Prism Labs again. Level were 1200ng/liter.

    Reviewed a lot of the PCO providers but not impressed with the commercial implementations. A lot of PR bull and very short of good objective testing. When testing was found the companies were not forth coming with details or conditions did not match real world living residences. Also most of these PCO devices seemed to spew Alot of hydrogen peroxides in the living space. Not saying that's necessarily bad, but didn't match the early academic research I'd seen (what was done by NASA).

    I'd like to ask a couple questions about your testing, and at the same time bring up some potential isses.

    First, a bit of background. You're probably aware of the physics behind sorption filters, including activated carbon, but in a nutshell you have a number of binding sites on the media that can adsorb various volatiles. Further, these sites will have different degrees of affinity for a volatile contaminant, depending on its chemical structure. As contaminants pass through the filter, some percentage of them will find these sites and bind to them. Over time, the filter will become saturated with these trapped contaminants, and it will no longer be effective. But even before the filter is saturated, there is a potential for desorption and release of contaminants. If a chemical with greater affinity for a binding site is introduced, it will displace the existing chemical, resulting in its release into the air. Other perturbations (changes in humidity, temperature, air flow) can likewise result in emission of trapped contaminants from the sorption filter.
    Yes I am familiar with the valid issues you point out. And thanks that is a good short primer. BUT - Most of these issues can be ameliorated by (1) Using a filter with a Lot of carbon with additives (2) Keeping the filter updated before saturation. Most consumer filters that contain activated carbon have much too little and rarely contain additives. That's why I use the Austin unit. It contains 15lbs of carbon. It's what FEMA used after 911.

    Over all I was very impressed with the 3rd party testing data that MoleKule released Except the graph comparing the carbon filter. There was no mention of the details of the carbon filter used. It it was the typical light weight stuff commonly used in Air Purifiers it wasn't representative of what a true capable heavy filter can do. I do agree with you that degradation of VOCs as opposed to sequestering them is preferred.

    [QUOTE]Now, regarding your test. You stated there was no drop in VOCs in your attic over 1 day of running Molekule. What was the starting TVOC value?
    I don't know what the True starting TVOC level was.
    As I mentioned in a previous post I suspected that the PID meter was not properly calibrated by the rental company. After investigation this was confirmed by the manufacturer and rental company. The meter I used was a ppbRAE plus. Unlike most PID meters that measure in PPM this meter measures in PPB. Reading were too low and it turns out incorrect procedures were used for calibration by the rental company. After discussions between me, the manufacturer (Honeywell) and the rental company this issue has been resolved. The rental company (they've been great) is providing me with a Free rental this weekend with a properly calibrated meter.

    BUT Relative readings are correct and there was no reduction in TVOC levels after a 12 hour period of running the MoleKule (on boost) for 12 hours. The meter read 85 ppb at the start and end of the test.

    How big is the attic? Is it sealed off from outside air?
    Attic is about 200 sq feet estimate.
    Attic is seal by Spray Foam Insulation. No outside air is brought in. I suspect it's leakier than it could be.


    For the second test, you gave Molekule 30 min and saw no drop in acetic acid levels, judging by the PID signal. What was the starting / ending TVOC value? Again, how big is the living room / kitchen where you tested it? It's hard to say exactly what's going on here, but I think the slow degradation you're observing from the Molekule might have something to do with A) unoptimized flow rate, or B) insufficient time for filter activation. Our testing has shown that the nanofilter will activate over time, so that degradation kinetics greatly improve after running the unit 12 - 24 hours.
    Again I can only provide relative starting and ending levels.
    Starting levels were around 125 ppb. The Austin filter reduced these to close to zero in under 2 minutes.
    I saw no reduction using the MoleKule over 30 minutes. I pointed the intake air input of the PID meter directly over the output of the carbon filter and the MoleKule.
    I reasoned I should see maxium results that way.

    Your point is taken about more time might be needed for the MoleKule to degrade VOCs in a living space. I mentioned this in an earlier review
    BUT - In the graphs of the 3rd party testing you show rapid degradation of single concentrated VOCs . I would think my test replicated this. I would expect some reduction. The differences between the cabon unit and the MoleKule were glaring.

    Remember I've got access to another ppb PID meter this weekend that should be more accurately calibrated. If you've got any suggestions for testing let me know and I will see what I can do.

    Also I think the PECO technology is very exciting and definely an upgrade for standard PCO, atleast a PCO 2.0. My confidence though is not that high right now.

    I said this probably a dozen times in the last few months but here is what I would like to see:

    Measure VOC levels in a real residence. Run the Air Purifier devices for a week of so and remeasure. Make the results available.
    Testing these devices in a big fish tank with super concentration of a single VOC does not mimic real world conditions.

    Again - Really appreciate your responding. And like I said I have not given up on the MoleKule. The PECO technology offers a lot of advancements.
    After my test this weekend I will be more than happy to return my unit for evaluation at your facility. Could there be a technical issue??

    Thanks
    Randy

  13. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    62
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by philipmyers View Post
    Hi Randy, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm Phil Myers, Principal Research Engineer for Molekule.
    Really appreciate your response. That's great!!.
    If you've followed my post on the two threads discussing the MoleKule device you know I've been fair. Basically I was very impressed by the credentials of the Dr. Godswani, the new PECO technology and the 3rd party testing that's been made available. I even spent a good amount of time defending your products, based on information provided by MoleKule and other sources, from a number of silly baseless criticisms. But I've made clear from the get go that objective testing is the final arbiter.

    Some history:
    I purchased a (supposivley 4* Green rated) Condo in April of 2015. Didn't move in until July. Noticed odors in April. Was told it was nothing to worry about (Home inspection company and others). Odors persisted, although diminished, after I moved in. That's when I educated myself in IAQ issues. I've got physical science/enginerring background so I can usually get the jist of technical journal articles. I've also got a good nose of promotional PR truth/bull**** which All companies use.

    Did a Gas Chromatography test via Prism Labs https://homeaircheck.com/products/) in Oct 2015.
    TVOCs level were 2200ng/liter. Should be under 500.
    Excessive level of fragrence compounds (pinines, limonese, carenes) and solvents. Formaldehyde was elevated also. Suspect previous tenants had a spill and tried to mask
    with fragrances, but don't know for sure.

    After much cleaning and ventilating did another Gas Chromatography (used Fike Analytical this time) test in March of 2016. Levels were 1400ng/liter.
    Don't know if I had real a abatement or just differences between the two companies.

    Last Gas Chromatography was done Feb. 2017 with Prism Labs again. Level were 1200ng/liter.

    Reviewed a lot of the PCO providers but not impressed with the commercial implementations. A lot of PR bull and very short of good objective testing. When testing was reported, the companies were not forth coming with details. Also most of these PCO devices seemed to spew A lot of hydrogen peroxides in the living space. Not saying that's necessarily bad, but didn't match the early academic research I'd seen (what was done by NASA).

    I'd like to ask a couple questions about your testing, and at the same time bring up some potential isses.

    First, a bit of background. You're probably aware of the physics behind sorption filters, including activated carbon, but in a nutshell you have a number of binding sites on the media that can adsorb various volatiles. Further, these sites will have different degrees of affinity for a volatile contaminant, depending on its chemical structure. As contaminants pass through the filter, some percentage of them will find these sites and bind to them. Over time, the filter will become saturated with these trapped contaminants, and it will no longer be effective. But even before the filter is saturated, there is a potential for desorption and release of contaminants. If a chemical with greater affinity for a binding site is introduced, it will displace the existing chemical, resulting in its release into the air. Other perturbations (changes in humidity, temperature, air flow) can likewise result in emission of trapped contaminants from the sorption filter.
    Yes I am familiar with the valid issues you point out. And thanks - that is a good short primer. BUT - Most of these issues can be ameliorated by (1) Using a filter with a Lot of carbon with additives (2) Keeping the filter updated before saturation. Most consumer filters that contain too little activated carbon tpp. That's why I use the Austin unit. It contains 15lbs of carbon. It's what FEMA used after 911.

    Over all I was very impressed with the 3rd party testing data that MoleKule released Except the graph comparing the carbon filter. There was no mention of the details of the carbon filter used. It it was the typical light weight stuff commonly used in Air Purifiers it wasn't representative of what a true capable heavy filter can do. I do agree with you that degradation of VOCs as opposed to sequestering them is preferred.

    Now, regarding your test. You stated there was no drop in VOCs in your attic over 1 day of running Molekule. What was the starting TVOC value?
    I don't know what the True starting TVOC level was.
    As I mentioned in a previous post, I suspected that the PID meter was not properly calibrated by the rental company. After investigation this was confirmed by the manufacturer and rental company. The meter I used was a ppbRAE plus. Unlike most PID meters that measure in PPM, this meter measures in PPB. Reading were too low and it turns out incorrect. After discussions between me, the manufacturer (Honeywell) and the rental company this issue has been resolved. The rental company (they've been great) is providing me with a Free rental this weekend with a properly calibrated meter.

    BUT Relative readings are correct and there was no reduction in TVOC levels after a 12 hour period of running the MoleKule (on boost) for 12 hours. The meter read 85 ppb at the start and end of the test.

    How big is the attic? Is it sealed off from outside air?
    Attic is about 200 sq feet estimate.
    Attic is seal by Spray Foam Insulation. No outside air is brought in. I suspect it's leakier than it could be though.


    For the second test, you gave Molekule 30 min and saw no drop in acetic acid levels, judging by the PID signal. What was the starting / ending TVOC value? Again, how big is the living room / kitchen where you tested it? It's hard to say exactly what's going on here, but I think the slow degradation you're observing from the Molekule might have something to do with A) unoptimized flow rate, or B) insufficient time for filter activation. Our testing has shown that the nanofilter will activate over time, so that degradation kinetics greatly improve after running the unit 12 - 24 hours.
    Again I can only provide relative starting and ending levels.
    Starting levels were around 125 ppb. The Austin filter reduced these to close to zero in under 2 minutes.
    I saw no reduction using the MoleKule over 30 minutes. I pointed the intake air input of the PID meter directly over the output of the carbon filter and the MoleKule.
    I reasoned I should see maxium results that way.

    Your point is taken about more time might be needed for the MoleKule to degrade VOCs in a living space. I mentioned this in an earlier post.
    BUT - In the graphs of your 3rd party testing show rapid degradation of single concentrated VOCs . I would think my test should replicate this. I would expect some reduction. The differences between the cabon unit and the MoleKule are glaring.

    Remember I've got access to another ppb PID meter this weekend that should be more accurately calibrated. If you've got any suggestions for testing let me know and I will see what I can do.

    Also I think the PECO technology is very exciting and definely an upgrade for standard PCO, atleast a PCO 2.0. My confidence though is not that high right now.

    I said this probably a dozen times in the last few months but here is what I would like to see:

    Measure VOC levels in a real residence. Run the Air Purifier devices for a week of so and remeasure. Make the results available.
    Testing these devices in a big fish tank with super concentration of a single VOC does not mimic real world conditions.

    Again - Really appreciate your responding. And like I said I have not given up on the MoleKule. The PECO technology offers a lot of advancements.
    After my tests this weekend I will be more than happy to return my unit for evaluation at your facility. Could there be a technical issue??

    Thanks
    Randy

  14. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    62
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by HVAC_Marc View Post
    Please post a full unbroken spectral analysis of the LEDs in the system. Please state the manufacturer of the LEDs. Please provide non-internal well known 3rd party testing sources and documentation.

    While Randy and I dont agree on a few things I believe his tests were pretty inclusive and comprehensive.
    In consideration of how are other exchanges have transpired in the past, I hesitate to respond, but respond I will.

    Your demands for these technical details are unreasonable and rude. NO manufacturer is expected expose details of this sort.
    The only purpose is to insinuate malfeasance. And that is flat out unjustified. Ever since I posted about the MoleKule you have inserted post after post of unsupported assertions - too many of which I have responded to in kind only to be led down a rabbit hole. That's *bad on me*. I won't do it that again.

    Dr. Godswani is an esteemed academic scientist with decades of basic science research in PCO/PECO technology. He edits (or use to anyway) a premier journal on solar technology.
    Phil Myers has a PHD in chemical engineering with almost a decade of research and publications to show for it. I'm familiar with how this work is done at these levels with these sorts of guys. They are not charlatans. Their most valuable asset is their objectivity. And I'm really pleased we've got a conversation going. I don't know if you intended to insult and demean but that's how you come off.

    There are number of divergent opinions on the use of oxidizing generators to reduce VOCs. You seem to think only RGF works, others are skeptical of this whole approach even suggesting these devices makes things worse. I would just like some clarity. I'm thankful and look forward to exchanges with anyone including manufacturers that would care to chime in. It shouldn't be hard to make a determination and my previous testing is Not the final word.

    BTW - Since you've got an on going relationship with RGF and they send you freebies on request I've got a request for you. Contact your buddy's at RGF have them send me one of their stand alone units. I'll do the same test that I do with the MoleKule. Provide contact info at RGF and I'll provide UPS a account number so I have the device this weekend when I have the PID meter available.

  15. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Billington Heights, NY
    Posts
    11,814
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by randyf View Post
    In consideration of how are other exchanges have transpired in the past, I hesitate to respond, but respond I will.

    Your demands for these technical details are unreasonable and rude. NO manufacturer is expected expose details of this sort.
    The only purpose is to insinuate malfeasance. And that is flat out unjustified. Ever since I posted about the MoleKule you have inserted post after post of unsupported assertions - too many of which I have responded to in kind only to be led down a rabbit hole. That's *bad on me*. I won't do it that again.

    Dr. Godswani is an esteemed academic scientist with decades of basic science research in PCO/PECO technology. He edits (or use to anyway) a premier journal on solar technology.
    Phil Myers has a PHD in chemical engineering with almost a decade of research and publications to show for it. I'm familiar with how this work is done at these levels with these sorts of guys. They are not charlatans. Their most valuable asset is their objectivity. And I'm really pleased we've got a conversation going. I don't know if you intended to insult and demean but that's how you come off.

    There are number of divergent opinions on the use of oxidizing generators to reduce VOCs. You seem to think only RGF works, others are skeptical of this whole approach even suggesting these devices makes things worse. I would just like some clarity. I'm thankful and look forward to exchanges with anyone including manufacturers that would care to chime in. It shouldn't be hard to make a determination and my previous testing is Not the final word.

    BTW - Since you've got an on going relationship with RGF and they send you freebies on request I've got a request for you. Contact your buddy's at RGF have them send me one of their stand alone units. I'll do the same test that I do with the MoleKule. Provide contact info at RGF and I'll provide UPS a account number so I have the device this weekend when I have the PID meter available.
    I can give a rat's patoot who he is. I asked for data. He's in a position to provide it. It's not rude to ask questions. He came on here and basically provided a longer version of the marketing stuff on their website. Im asking for further expansion on that marketspeak. You test things in your way, I test it in mine. By the way, I sent them a very pleasant email requesting a demo/test unit. They couldnt even be bothered to reply with a "NO!"

    I KNOW other systems besides RGF products work. Even bare UV lights work. Many manufacturers sell UV, carbon or ozone based air sanitation systems that work quite well. Shoot, you can even burn them off...

    So far, your own tests have shown this new system doesnt do anything. With the specific and precise tools you spent your own good money on I would expect SOME results. The fact that it showed very accurate results with the Austin Air unit, but not the Molekule unit speaks volumes. Even if the tools used were out of calibration there's still a huge disparity in results.

    Contact RGF on your own. They're very receptive to proving that their product functions as intended. I shouldnt have to do your work for you. Besides, I will be leaving for out of town shortly.

    1101 W 13th St. Riviera Beach, FL 33404
    Phone: 1-800-842-7771
    Experience - knowing when to get the hell out of the way and plug your ears. "Don't be a sissy. Turn it on!"
    Poodle Head Mikey - "the world is well populated with the unknowing and the uncaring and the stupid."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor MagazineThe place where Electrical professionals meet.