Reply to Thread

Originally Posted by JustJake

Is a BlueAir classic air purifier the same tech? They make larger Pro models for large spaces.

Info on the web the BlueAir classic models include:
1. Large CFM capability
2. HEPA filtration - for particulates not VOCs
3. Electro Static grill to negatively charge particulates and collect on positive charge plate. Works for particulates not VOC
4. Carbon filters. They don't specify size. These are effective for VOCs. Depending on the specific VOC effectiveness will vary.
Keep in mind Carbon will lose effectiveness much sooner that manufacturers know or realize.

GPS might be more effective for biologicals near the unit, but less effective for non-biological particulates and VOCs.

Is a BlueAir classic air purifier the same tech? They make larger Pro models for large spaces.

Originally Posted by Kevinyork

what is the difference between GPS and CPG (cold plasma generator)?

No difference. Same technilogy

I have doubts about GPS claims of VOC reduction.
Here's a quote from GPS's website:

"The ions breakdown harmful VOCs with an Electron Volt Potential under twelve (eV<12) into harmless compounds like O2, CO2, N2, and H2O."

Very sciency sounding but very unscientific. Electron Volt Potential does not refer to the ability to break down VOCs into harmless components but to ionize different molekules. This simply means that outer shell electorns are added or subtracted. There is no breakdown of the molekule into simpler components. Now there may be some advantages of ionization -(1) smaller stuff will stick together to make bigger stuff and fall to the ground or be captured by filters, but good HEPA filters are probably better (2) Ionizing small biologicals "might" disrupt cell membranes and kill the bugs in questions. How effectively this is done is not clear.

But Ions, by themselves, will not *breakdown* VOCs, contrary to GPS's claim. I could be wrong and am willing to test with instrumentation if I could be my hands on a unit. I approached GPS about this and they said they already know it works and don't need my input. They pointed me to some data on their web site but it was double speak nonsense.

Non Therma Plasma has been shown to reduce VOCs in scientific studies but these applications differ significantly from GPS approach. This devices use very intense electric fields in what amount to a gigantic capacitor usually with a catalyst of some sort. In this approach Hydroxlys are generated and these can breakdown VOCs to simpler elements. Usually these approaches also generate Ozone at the same time. The fact that GPS doesn't generate ozone, which they use as a selling point, also raises doubt about their ability to produce Hydroxyls.

If all it took was a 12 EVP to destroy VOCs, UVC lights could be used for the same purpose but UVC does not breakdown VOCs.

All the above is not to say that GPS does not reduce particulates (probably not as good as HEPAs though) or can sometimes kill biologicals (like UVC does) but their claims for VOC reduction are unfounded.

Maybe I'm wrong but it's easy to test - why hasn't GPS shown this. They like to advertise how they can prevent mold growth in a small fish tank or reduce cigarette smoke in same said fish tank. Why haven't the showed the same about VOCs. Also demonstrating effectiveness in a fish tank makes for impressive Youtube video's but it's a far cry from a real living space.

Originally Posted by Kevinyork

what is the difference between GPS and CPG (cold plasma generator)?

I'm not sure what the difference is. I'm a stocking distributor for GPS and Nu Calgon products. The Nu Calgon products are geared towards units 6 tons or less and the GPS we have that will cover coils as wide as 10'. Here is another threead with the case studies, independent laboratory tests and an hour long video about the GPS technology. https://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread...=killing+covid

what is the difference between GPS and CPG (cold plasma generator)?

Also Evoaire, I believe, is an international manufacturer. I"d be interested in learning more about our technology.

Thanks

My understanding is that GPS does not offer money back guarantees.
If you know of a reseller/distributor that will loan me one I"d be willing to test.

And keep in mind testing cost me about $300 - $500 for test equipment rentals.

Methodology is straight forward:
1. Using high grade PID meter (Ion Science - $8000 device) I measure before, during and after VOC levels in an real living space at controlled temperatures. I would also used a heavy carbon filter for comparison.
2. Can also use GC/MS testing but this is more expensive and takes more time.

Ask your retailer/wholesaler if it’s money back guarantee. Purchase one and start testing. Would love to hear back from you. Do me a solid and start testing the I-wave first. But mind your method, you want to be credible and all. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by hepservice

The GPS/Nu-Calgon iWave-M box states, "Reduces VOC's".

For clarity - My post concern VOCs, not particulates (objects >.01 microns). VOCs are a different animal all together than particulates.
DSS - is generated by biologicals (a particulate). The smell might be VOCs, but it generated by living particulates. Kill the biological and the smell should eventually go away.

GPS might be effective against biologicals - I don't know. My concern is VOCS and that's where my doubts are concerning these devices.

Originally Posted by hepservice

The GPS/Nu-Calgon iWave-M box states, "Reduces VOC's".

Yes - I know. And that is one of the underlying themes of my post. Manufactures are making claims that aren't supported.

My initial investigation started with MoleKule. Unlike GPS they were very supportive. After I posted negative findings on HVAC, they contacted me directly and made sincere efforts to resolve discrepancies. They worked with me for months with some capital expense at their end and no expense at my end. I was Impressed to say the least. Still I never saw any VOC reductions. At my last communication with them I requested they perform the same test I did. Find a residential living space with elevated VOC (>1300 ng/liter) and perform before and after VOC testing (with a PID meter and/or GC/MS). Some months later they reported a very impressive results from a 3rd party testing facility they commissioned. RGF has done similar studies. Unfortunately these studies are contrived and do not match what is found in our homes and offices. They use extremely small spaces with mixtures of a extremely high levels of just of few VOCs. This is not what we find in homes. In fact the science literature has criticized the testing of these devices for just that reason.

Here's a quote from an scientific journal article reviewing this technology:
"Currently most studies demonstrate their VOCs removal efficiency in a high concentration level (e.g., ppmv). More on-site demonstrations should be conducted in order to prove the efficiency in removal of indoor VOCs in realistic environments (e.g., residential and work spaces)."
Ref: https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/21/1/56/htm

All these companies need to do is perform testing in real environments to demonstrate effectiveness (for VOCs - these devices might work for biologicals). Not only would this resolve doubts about the technology in our homes, its much, much cheaper than a artificial lab test. My hunch is that the manufacturers do not do this because they know the results would be lackluster at best.

I've seen a report from GPS demonstrating VOC reduction and I was not impressed. It was a convoluted collection of data that was impossible for me to make heads or tails of. Granted this might be due to a lousy presentation and I stand to be corrected.

You seem to be an evidence sort of guy. You can do the same tests I did.
I'll be more than happy to provide details on testing equipment and procedures. It's not that expensive.
You could also provide before and after testing with a customer (cost about ~150 bucks for accurate lab testing for VOCs.

The GPS device can be easily testing in a closed room with a fan moving air behind it. I planned on doing just that. I told GPS I would report the results to them and I wouldn't post my finding without their approval.My only request was to return the device for a refund if it didn't work. They refused. They said they know the device worked and weren't interested in what I found.

It's interesting the GPS has a number of demonstrations on Youtube showing effectiveness for smoke and moldy bread in itty bitty containers, but no data showing anything about VOCs. Hum??

I'd really like to see more folks (especially professionals like you) test and then confront the manufactures. At that point they would have to put up or shut up.

Originally Posted by randyf

I have also seen a lot of positive reports about GPS technology (rebranded by NuCalgon) but I have some doubts.
I approached them about testing. Told them I wouldn't release results unless they approved. They were not interested. Said they already have tested and proved it works and directed me to their web site.
The only detailed report on VOCs was a convoluted mess of data. It was impossible (for me) to make heads or tails if the device was effective. I did not review their data on biologicals (mold, bugs) so cannot speak to that.

Unlike the *Plasma* technology (and this can be effective in some situations) that's been studied in the scientific literature, I've seen no evidence that GPS technology produces oxidizing substances (hydroxyls). It does produce positive/negative ions. The claim is the that positive/negative ions will clump to substances in the air and form heavier particulates. These can fall to the floor and be caught by return air filters or standalone hepa filters.
They have videos on Youtube demonstrated this in a very small container.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcEYG5qy1h4

Don't know if this could be helpful for VOC. At best GPS (I may be wrong) would ionize a VOC and form a larger clump with other particles and to the fall to the floor or be trapped by >merv11 fitlers, but the VOCs are not eliminated (converted to H20/C02). If their technology really reduced VOCs that could demonstrate with some simple (PID meters, GC/MS) testing in real living spaces. I could very well be wrong. If so I stand and wish to be corrected.

Lack of testing (in real living spaces, with typical VOC mixtures) is not unique to GPS. All the magic box air cleaning manufactures seem to suffer from this lack. They seem to offer *fancy * studies that amount to litter more than a shell game with little relevance to real living spaces.

I'm still researching.

The GPS/Nu-Calgon iWave-M box states, "Reduces VOC's".

I have also seen a lot of positive reports about GPS technology (rebranded by NuCalgon) but I have some doubts.
I approached them about testing. Told them I wouldn't release results unless they approved. They were not interested. Said they already have tested and proved it works and directed me to their web site.
The only detailed report on VOCs was a convoluted mess of data. It was impossible (for me) to make heads or tails if the device was effective. I did not review their data on biologicals (mold, bugs) so cannot speak to that.

Unlike the *Plasma* technology (and this can be effective in some situations) that's been studied in the scientific literature, I've seen no evidence that GPS technology produces oxidizing substances (hydroxyls). It does produce positive/negative ions. The claim is the that positive/negative ions will clump to substances in the air and form heavier particulates. These can fall to the floor and be caught by return air filters or standalone hepa filters.
They have videos on Youtube demonstrated this in a very small container.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcEYG5qy1h4

Don't know if this could be helpful for VOC. At best GPS (I may be wrong) would ionize a VOC and form a larger clump with other particles and to the fall to the floor or be trapped by >merv11 fitlers, but the VOCs are not eliminated (converted to H20/C02). If their technology really reduced VOCs that could demonstrate with some simple (PID meters, GC/MS) testing in real living spaces. I could very well be wrong. If so I stand and wish to be corrected.

Lack of testing (in real living spaces, with typical VOC mixtures) is not unique to GPS. All the magic box air cleaning manufactures seem to suffer from this lack. They seem to offer *fancy * studies that amount to litter more than a shell game with little relevance to real living spaces.

I'm still researching.

Originally Posted by Juan Madera

I've installed 10 of these on the air handlers in the Casino and so far, have been pleased. Floor personnel say they go home and clothing does not stink of cigarette smoke! I think that says a lot.

We also do a 20% out door air mix which helped a lot, but the coup 'd gras was the ionizers...

http://www.iwaveair.com/products/iwave-c

Are these still working well? We're looking to try the M series for DSS on ductless evaps.

Thanks for the report.
Cigarette smoke is a major issue and I can understand your enthusiasm for the Iwave devices. But cigarette smoke is particulate matter. VOCs, the issue I'm dealing with, are another animal altogether.
Fresh air, carbon seem to work. Not so sure these standalone boxes are useful. Still searching though.

BTW - IWave is branded product provided by Global Plasma Solutions ( I think)

I've installed 10 of these on the air handlers in the Casino and so far, have been pleased. Floor personnel say they go home and clothing does not stink of cigarette smoke! I think that says a lot.

We also do a 20% out door air mix which helped a lot, but the coup 'd gras was the ionizers...

http://www.iwaveair.com/products/iwave-c

Originally Posted by HVAC_Marc

According to Kenneth, so far, the prototype Molekule for whole house works for him and his wife. IMO it's because it has far more surface area for a reaction, he has less than or of an easier VOC to break down, and it's psychological (he wants it to work).

As there is not more than one of these in use, it's very difficult to quantify/qualify.

Unless he has taken before and after test with a PID meter or gas chromatography/mass spec lab test I don't know how anything conclusive can be determined as for as VOCs are concerned. As I recall he installed new duct work before installing the MoleKule. Too many changing variables and a lack of objective testing to reach a conclusion for TVOC levels.

Also as I recall, according to Kennith, his complaint was mold and dust. Biologicals are much easier to destroy with PCO technology than VOCs. All it take to kill a bug is one broken carbon/hydorgen bond. It takes a lot more work to break all the C/Bonds with VOCs.

I'm in the middle of doing in house testing, as I write, with the generous help of MoleKule. I will provide an update after testing and when appropriate.

Randy

According to Kenneth, so far, the prototype Molekule for whole house works for him and his wife. IMO it's because it has far more surface area for a reaction, he has less than or of an easier VOC to break down, and it's psychological (he wants it to work).

As there is not more than one of these in use, it's very difficult to quantify/qualify.

There are 4 categories of devices mentioned in this thread:

1. Classic Photo Catalytic Oxidation devices. Basically these generate a very strong oxidizing agent - hydroxyl ions. Scientific studies on this technology dates back decades. NASA used this technology to remove ethylene from the vegetable garden in the space shuttle in the 90s. How well this technology works in residences with typical levels of VOCs is not conclusive. At extreme VOCs levels these devices can be effective but at levels found in residences/business I have not seen convincing data. Here's a link to how this technology works:
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how...iers-work.html

Here's a very good science overview of this technology: Note sciency and nerdy:
http://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/21/1/56


2. An off shoot of this technology is PCO that generates primarily hydrogen peroxide. RGF/Air Osasis and a number of other companies used this approach. Unlike classic PCO the reactions takes place in the living space not at the catalyst. Also this approach, like classic PCO can generate a lot of ozone, a lot more than the manufactures like to admit. Not much independent testing. The companies that do the testing provide results that don't scale well to real world living spaces.

3. A number of companies (RGF/Air Osasis and more) ionize the hydrogen preoxide. The claim being that the ions add an extra kick by getting particulates and VOCs to stick together resulting in bigger particles that will drop horizonal surfaces and/or can be collected by air filters - merv 10+. Not a lot of good evidence that this approach offers significant help in real world conditions.

4. Pure Ionizers, which is what I think was the original inquiry. A couple of companies are - Global Plasma Solutions, Air Plasma and Atmos Air.

I've been researching all the above with diminishing enthusiasm, but I haven't given up yet.

The only way to know if this stuff works is objective testing using instrumentation. I believe a lot folks confuse the smell of ozone with clean air.

Fresh air intake, as Teddy in constantly reminding us, does work.

Bake outs are another approach that can be effective see:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bake...hrome&ie=UTF-8

When researching stick to independent science articles. Beware of science PR spin used by manufactures.

To be continued....

Originally Posted by kevinsf1

I wonder if he's talking about the Reme Halo? It apparently ionizes the air without releasing ozone (or so I've been led to believe). I'm considering this for a new HVAC install to help clean the indoor air (would likely couple this with a dehumidifying ventilator to bring fresh air into the house).

There's lots of folks here who are pretty happy with the Reme Halo...

There are a lot of people who love these. I tried the little desk top display Reme has in my house and noticed an improvement in less dog smells from the 2 dogs.