Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 25 of 25
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    59
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by kmartin78 View Post
    Months ago I first reported this white paper and aggressively defended it against baseless attacks.
    I knew that someone of Dr. Goswami stature and the reputation of the 3rd party testing lab would not release these results unless they were valid.
    In fact is was this paper that was responsible for my purchase of a MoleKule device.

    Unfortunately, proper context and additional testing cast a different light on these findings.

    The paper reports testing two VOCs, Acetone and Toluene, in different experiments at concentrations one would never find in a residence - >=1000ppb.
    At those levels one wouldn't just think the house just had an odor, but a very serious problem that required immediate evacuation and probably a call to the fire station.
    Even if the MoleKule reduced these VOCs by 98%, there would still be a problem. 20 ppb of Toluene is an issue, much less 1000.

    What's unknown is how well the MoleKule behaves at levels one would typically find in an occupied living space with rationally increased levels. (Acetone (30ppb) and Toluene (20ppb).
    https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quali...aluation-study
    ttps://www3.epa.gov/ceampubl/learn2model/part-two/onsite/ia_unit_conversion.html

    In fact - this issue is recognized in the literature.
    Here's a quote from a recent paper reviewing PCO technology:

    Removal of Indoor Volatile Organic Compounds via
    Photocatalytic Oxidation: A Short Review
    and Prospect

    http://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/21/1/56

    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).
    This seems to be consistent with my testing over the last few month. I will start a new thread soon to review.

    My other complaint about the white paper is what I consider the misleading discussion of the effectiveness of carbon. The result shows the carbon filter releasing previously trapped VOCs in just minutes.
    Turns out the test was only using a 1/4 lb of carbon. That's absurd. I have a 15 carbon filter with an additive that's lasted for years. Additionally, the tests with my carbon filter in my condo outperforms the MoleKule by an order of magnitude. Granted, I will still continue testing and apply any suggestions that MoleKule recommends. I haven't given up yet.

    Finally as I've stated many times I have the highest regard for the integrity and technical competence of MoleKule's scientiest, but there are still open questions.

    I'll go into more detail very soon, in another thread.

  2. Likes DavidDeBord liked this post
  3. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    1,349
    Post Likes
    I have no horse in this race, but I've generally found that the number of references to a person's credentials is inversely proportional to the quality of the science they are purveying.

  4. Likes HVAC_Marc liked this post
  5. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    698
    Post Likes
    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.

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

  6. Likes HVAC_Marc liked this post
  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Billington Heights, NY
    Posts
    20,923
    Post Likes
    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)

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    59
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by breathe easy View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    59
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by HVAC_Marc View Post
    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!!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Billington Heights, NY
    Posts
    20,923
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by randyf View Post
    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.

  11. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    698
    Post Likes
    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.

  12. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Billington Heights, NY
    Posts
    20,923
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by breathe easy View Post

    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.

  13. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    59
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by breathe easy View Post
    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




    .

  14. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    698
    Post Likes
    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.

  15. Likes HVAC_Marc liked this post
  16. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    698
    Post Likes
    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.

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.