Reply to Thread

One factor you need to pay attention to is that Molekule sells the air purifiers by its own website, they do not sell on amazon, walmart and others website. That makes the so-called reviews on their own website can not be real unbiased. On the contrary, austin air is a brand which has been producing air purifiers for many many years. We can always found the consumer reviews on websites like amazon.

Thank you for removing the fake "testimonial" post.

Meanwhile the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the BBB has recommended that Molekule discontinue it's pollution elimination claims and any claims of asthma and allergy symptom relief. It was found that these claims were unsubstantiated by evidence supplied by Molekule. It was also found that the claims concerning the superiority of the PECO technology over HEPA technology were not supported by valid research. Finally, the limited air cleaning capacity of the Molecule could not produce the results claimed in the Molekule advertisements. The full press release gives more details https://asrcreviews.org/nad-recommen...tain-findings/

This is not a post. It is an advertisement - and a bad one at that.

Genesis
Your comments are not surprising. We have seen this drill before - attractive design, questionable technology, insufficient testing results, and overblown claims. You are much more knowledgeable on PCO than I am, but I do know that one air change per hour in a typical sized room is a product killer for me. Even if it works as advertised, it is not powerful enough to overcome the activity in the space where it is being used to produce meaningful results. No wonder that the research finding that the Austin Air more efficient than the Molekule was the "genesis" of this thread.

Interesting conversion here. What you guys don't realize is the Molekule is about 15 years behind in PCO technology. We moved out of the prototype stage 12 years ago. Our system is for the most part commercial and light industrial. It can be found all over the world in Hospitals, Airports, Federal Buildings and more. The residential market is something we looked at in the beginning and decided against developing a product for it. I met Goswami at the Orlando AHRAE show over ten years ago. We had sent a prototype unit in for Energy Star Certification and he was in charge of the program at South Florida University at the time. Blew his mind the direction we were going with it. He maybe a great scientist but he doesn't know the HVAC industry. I have one of his table top units setting in our lab as we speak. And have ran it thru tests. They are miles away from having a commercially viable system for the HVAC industry is all I can say. The table top unit is a sexy looking unit built for a particular market group.

I certainly don't deny your report. Lots of folks have have posted similar results(on the web) and I'm certain many are sincere.

My report is very specific - Lack of VOC reduction measured with a industrial grade PID meter whereas heavy carbon devices showed large reductions in the same test setup.

VOCs are just One aspect of IAQ and probably not the most significant for the sorts of problems you and most other folks buy an air purifier. In fact the developer designed the product because of his son's server allergy. Particulates, another component of IAQ, are generally involved in respiratory/allergy aliments. The MoleKule might work great for that. I do not know, it's not what I tested for.

I bought the device because is was promoted, among other things, to reduce VOC levels. I was also impressed with the science expertise of the developer and head scientist. I'm still impressed with these guys. Also MoleKule's 3rd party lab testing is significant. Problem is these results haven't been shown to translate to real living spaces - homes. All test result are in small non real world stainless steel enclosures with contrived setups. I'm suspicious because all MoleKule, RGF and any of the PCO manufacturers need to do is run simple inexpensive tests in real homes. Instead they spend lots of money testing in big fish bowls with very untypical mixtures of VOCs. This criticism is not limited to MoleKule but all the major players(RGF). VOC reduction in homes is very easy to demonstrate . If these device work like we want them to work - homes- why don't the manufacturers present the data.

I have tried both units, and many others over the years.

I suffer from a respiratory disorder called chronic bronchitis
and Bronchiectasis, a condition in which the lungs fail to remove
mucus within the lungs in a normal way.

I will state sincerely and in good faith that the Molekule profoundly
helped assuage the sequela of my symptoms, versus the many other
air purifiers I have tried...and profoundly

I was reading today where at ClinicalTrials.gov that a investigation
is underway to evaluate the efficacy of the Molekule in ICU
hospital rooms.

Originally Posted by shane1900

Randy can you share a link to the 15 lb carbon filter you are using?

Here's the link to the Austin Air device I was using previously.
Probably a safer bet than the other device as regards warranty and an established company:
https://austinair.com/shop/healthmate-plus/

A Canadian company, Airpura, also makes reputable devices.
The TeraBloom units I referenced though had significantly better VOC reduction numbers than the Austin, but it's ugly, loud and I don't know how long the carbon will take to saturate.

Originally Posted by shane1900

Randy can you share a link to the 15 lb carbon filter you are using?

Here's the carbon filter- https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Here's the matching inline fan - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It's loud, not pretty and aimed at the marajuana growers market -But it's very impressive in reducing VOC levels measured with an industrial PID meter.
My go to device used to be the Austin Air HP+, but this device offers significantly better results at about 1/3 the cost.

Glad to here from you again.
Do you consider fresh air change and maintaining humidity levels to be part of good indoor air quality?
If so how much air change and what humidity level.
Keep us posted.
Regard Teddy Bear

Randy can you share a link to the 15 lb carbon filter you are using?

The 80cfm airflow rate of the Molekule is a major problem. Here's why:

When an air cleaner is in use indoor particles levels (and VOC's) are a function of the following:
outdoor to indoor transfer, activity in the space, deposition, efficiency of the air cleaning device, air changes per hour and system run time.

In an occupied space particles and VOC's are constantly being generated. So there is a battle between contaminant removal and contaminant regeneration. 80CFM will lose that battle in all but the smallest of rooms (100-150 square feet).

Given this fact - it makes the question of PECO effectiveness somewhat moot.

Randy

Good discussion. Your research is well done and impressive.

My point about Dr. Godswami is that he made the point to emphasize his credentials and that he is an "expert." He was trying to add weight and legitimacy to his claims. Thus, he needs to be held up to a higher standard. Making these incorrect points on how HEPA filters work illustrates that he is not an expert in this field. In my view he has earned the criticism - especially when his lack of knowledge is being used to sell his product.

Originally Posted by breathe easy

Randy

I am not sure what your point is.

My point, again, is that your slam was rude, overdone and didn't justify a total dismissal of Godswami's on those points alone . Granted - Godswami's didn't know the limits of HEPA filtration but that doesn't mean his device was suspect and he's an idiot. Most folks that sell HEPA equipment aren't familiar that information. The only time I've even seen it mentioned on this site in this thread and myself shortly before the crash.

You were on point in bringing it up just not justified in insulting Godswami because of it.

Also you are correct in pointing out that Godswami and the MoleKule PR material is playing a shell game when they conflate particulate filtering as opposed to VOC destruction. The do a very poor job of differentiating between these two distinct components of indoor air pollution. PM 2.5 is nasty stuff and responsible for a lot of health issue, especially in Asia and third world, but it's very easy to deal with - HEPA filtration. But HEPA filtration is useless for VOC remediation.

The link you provided of Godswami was his response to Thomas Talhelm of https://smartairfilters.com/cn/en/. Thomas has done significant work on the other side of the Pacific promoting and developing very cost efficient HEPA filters. I've provided links to his products many times. But - Thomas is lacking in a few details especially regarding VOC issues.

Godswami is correct in noting that biologicals can live and grow on HEPA filters. This is well know in the literature and is the reason industrial grade HEPA filters in hospital us UV lamps The jpg Godswami provided ,I believe, was from one of those papers. See reference at the end of this post. [1] [2]

And, as you have pointed out over the years, a number of papers have reported issues with PCO concerning residual/intermediate VOCs - especially formaldehyde . But these are not universal findings. There have been hundreds of papers published on PCO since 2010. Here's one from the CDC successfully dealing with excess formaldehyde in FEMA trailers in the aftermath of Katrina. [3]
Also here's a recent and very good review of PCO that I highly recommend -
http://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/21/1/56

MoleKules third party testing is first rate and the original papers are available. Here's a summary - VOCs - https://assets.molekule.com/papers/VOCs.pdf
I have no issue with these spectacular results, but I question the relevance. Although the before and after results are impressive they started with an unusually high concentration of a single VOC that would not be found in a occupied residence. There is no data that I"ve seen of how their device performs and lower concentrations. My testing does not show effectiveness at lower concentrations but I'm not finished yet.

One thing I will say with no doubt - When the scientist at MoleKule provide me with data I know it's on the up and up. Still I haven't seen the device work when testing with realistically raised VOCs that one would find in a home. I've brought this up many times to the MoleKule tech folks and still haven't receive an adequate response. I've still got some more testing to do.

[1] “Effectiveness of Air Filters and Air Cleaners in Allergic Respiratory Diseases: A Review of the Recent Literature”, Current Allergy and Asthma Rep (2011) 11:395-402

[2] Kim SH, Ahn GR, Son SY, Bae GN, Yun YH. Mold occurring on the air cleaner high-efficiency particulate air filters used in the houses of child patients with atopic dermatitis. Mycobiology. 2014;42(3):286-290.)

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/traile...a_trailers.pdf




.

Originally Posted by breathe easy

In reviewing the Molekule website it claims that the product will give one air exchange per hour is a room of 600 square feet. Assuming 8 foot ceilings this works out to be an air flow rate of 80cfm. No wonder the Austin Air outperformed it hands down. You need air circulation through the air cleaning device to clean the air. The Molekule simply does not have it.

Ideally, 80 cfm of not previously filtered air, too.

Randy

I am not sure what your point is. Sure the PECO technology is questionable - particularly when it comes to the unintended byproducts of the chemical reactions. I have never been convinced that these are totally unavoidable.

However, the Molekule is being sold as an air purifier. As such one of its main functions is to pull particles out of the air. Here is the claim from Dr. Goswami which illustrates his lack of understanding of how HEPA filters work:

"What HEPA filters can and can’t do: HEPA filters will filter particles of 0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency, just as the HEPA filter manufacturers claim. While it is possible that a HEPA filter can filter out some smaller than 0.3 micron particles due to diffusion and impact, these particles can just as easily become free and get back into the air since they are significantly smaller than the pore size of HEPA (pore size = the gaps within the fibers of HEPA). Viruses that are smaller than the pores of HEPA can just pass through. See the image below taken from a scanning electron microscope (SEM) of mold spores growing on a HEPA filter. The relative size of the mold spore to the pores/opening of the fibers helps easily show how these mold spores can detach and become airborne once again:

(Visit website to see photo: https://www.quora.com/Is-Molekule-re...-on-the-market)"

It is interesting to follow the above link since it goes to an article that debunks the claims of Molekule. There is a picture of an electron microscope view of particles on a HEPA filter. (I don't think these are mold spores - too small) But the picture does not support the conclusion that what is on the filter will go through the HEPA filter. In fact the mention of the size of the pores in the filter is further confirmation that he does not know what he is talking about.

Pore size relates to the filtration method called "straining." this accounts for about 1% of the particles captured by a filter. He seems to have no understanding that "interception" and "diffusion" are the main methods used by filters to capture small particles.

At the very least if you are going to sell an air purifier - DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

In reviewing the Molekule website it claims that the product will give one air exchange per hour is a room of 600 square feet. Assuming 8 foot ceilings this works out to be an air flow rate of 80cfm. No wonder the Austin Air outperformed it hands down. You need air circulation through the air cleaning device to clean the air. The Molekule simply does not have it.

Originally Posted by randyf

Why? Buying a product directly from the manufacturer has both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is lower cost. No middle man pulling out cash for end user/manfacturer.

Mainly, because they tend to color-up the research to schmooze the consumer and as an HVAC tech I have to deal with all their unhappy customers because of their BS. Middle men often cut to the core of the BS and wont sell their "product".


Well the RGF REME, in Austin, cost me over 1K from the dealers here for a whole lot less hardware.
I can buy them on Amazon cheaper but then RGF won't honor the warranty.

Boo hoo. Dealers (and hvac businesses in general) have to make money too. They arent in the business of charity.


They use a variant of PCO called PECO and it's patented. Only use UVA and don't produce any Ozone (unlike the REME)

Automotive air intake tornado swirlers are patented too.

Same as RGF. Just *Feel Good* proof, I have yet to see any objective data in a real living space as opposed to the artificial tests done in a fish tank by RGF

NOPE. There's thousands of proven customers. Im one of them. Expensive meters are often not needed to prove something works. Maybe you require them. But sometimes, the nose knows.

But that may change. I've now got a device the uses the same tech as RGF - Hydrogen Peroxide ion generator that spews in the living space. Hope to have data in the next couple of weeks. And - I really hope it works!!

You've been saying for a LONG time that you'll have new data. Keep hoping. We're waiting.

Originally Posted by HVAC_Marc

I distrust any company that markets high priced items direct to consumers:

Why? Buying a product directly from the manufacturer has both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is lower cost. No middle man pulling out cash for end user/manfacturer.

- that other companies have at a lower price and do the same thing

Well the RGF REME, in Austin, cost me over 1K from the dealers here for a whole lot less hardware.
I can buy them on Amazon cheaper but then RGF won't honor the warranty.

- that claim to use some "science" or "method" no one else uses

They use a variant of PCO called PECO and it's patented. Only use UVA and don't produce any Ozone (unlike the REME)

- that has a fancy website filled with marketing BS
(- that doesnt have ONE verifiable working system anywhere)("feel good" proof isnt proof enough)

Same as RGF. Just *Feel Good* proof, I have yet to see any objective data in a real living space as opposed to the artificial tests done in a fish tank by RGF

But that may change. I've now got a device the uses the same tech as RGF - Hydrogen Peroxide ion generator that spews in the living space. Hope to have data in the next couple of weeks. And - I really hope it works!!

Originally Posted by breathe easy

To confirm this statement, Dr. Goswami clearly does not know very much about filters. He may be a highly regarded scientist in some field - but not filtration. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of HEPA filters would not make the statement that they only pull out particles down to 0.3 microns. In actual fact, 0.3 microns is the Most Penetrating Particle Size (MPPS). This is the point where filters are the least efficient. They are actually more efficient at sizes smaller and larger than 0.3 microns. So while they are 99.97% efficient on 0.3 microns they are more efficient on 0.2 or 0.1 microns.

Lots of folks that should know better aren't aware that the .3 micron is not the lower limit but just the most difficult particle size to filter. Even the PR material from companies that manufacture HEPA devices aren't explicit on this topic.

Making this elementary mistake raises questions about the effectiveness of the Molekule product. How can we believe other claims?

Respectfully - That's not fair and I disagree. Dr. Goswami lack of knowledge regarding the limits of HEPA technology has no relevance for his competency regarding PCO any more than a lack of knowledge on the latest developments in Dermatology has anything to do with the expertise of a Heart Surgeon. PCO is not a filtering technology. It's solely concerned with destruction of VOCs(via oxidation). That's not to say there may be concerns about intermediate breakdown products - a topic you have reported on HVAC-Talk for years -Thanks.

See Godswami's creds here: https://molekule.com/yogi-goswami

I have devoted a fair amount of time and expense testing the MoleKule (using premium a grade industrial PID meter) and have worked in detail with the scientist at MoleKule. To date I have not recorded any significant results. But I have the highest regard for the integrity and competence of MoleKule's scientist and engineers. Unfortunately my reported results were lost when the forum crashed a couple of months ago. I"ll try to repost this week. Also I've got at least another round of testing to do.

I have no doubts about the findings that MoleKule reported here regarding VOC reductions:
VOCs - https://assets.molekule.com/papers/VOCs.pdf

My beef is, and this is not limited to just MoleKule but to all the major manufactures of PCO devices, is that their testing used unusually high starting levels of single VOCs in a very small compartment.
This does not relate to what we find in our living spaces. This limitation is noted in the published literature.

I distrust any company that markets high priced items direct to consumers:

- that other companies have at a lower price and do the same thing
- that claim to use some "science" or "method" no one else uses
- that has a fancy website filled with marketing BS
(- that doesnt have ONE verifiable working system anywhere)("feel good" proof isnt proof enough)