Guest guest Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 I use honeywell air cleaners in my home In a message dated 2/12/2010 7:49:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tug_slug@... writes: What brand hepa filters seem to work the best for home and auto? Thanks Tug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 We used to use ones that we could just buy at a hardware store. But they didn't seem to work very well. We finally broke down and bought Blueair brand for the upstairs and Austin Air brand for the basement (since Austin air has more carbon -works better for basements IMO). Although they were spendy and the filters are spendy, we're glad we did it. We can tell a huge difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 None if, because if it is difficult to contain them, and then microorganisms are smaller than what HEPA filter are rated that they can capture; 3 micron. So if its for mold, it is not the best option. I wish I could tell you. > > What brand hepa filters seem to work the best for home and auto? > > Thanks > > Tug > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 To be rated as a HEPA the filter media must capture 99.97% of 0.3 micron particles, not 3.0 micron. Most micro-organisms are 1 micron and larger. HEPA is very effective at removing intact spores. Fragments may be a different matter because some could be smaller than the HEPA can capture. Also, HEPA is generally ineffective against the molecules given off my mold and bacteria, VOCs for example. HEPA actually has a better capture rate somewhat below 0.3 and certainly above 0.3. But 0.3 micron is the measuring point because that is the most difficult size to capture. The capture curve is shaped like a " U " with the 0.3 at the very bottom. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- None if, because if it is difficult to contain them, and then microorganisms are smaller than what HEPA filter are rated that they can capture; 3 micron. So if its for mold, it is not the best option. I wish I could tell you. > > What brand hepa filters seem to work the best for home and auto? > > Thanks > > Tug > ---------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: DEFAULT.BMP Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10 Size: 358 bytes. Type: Unknown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 There are two other considertions with HEPA filters: 1. Some products are identified as " HEPA like " or " HEPA type " and are not true HEPA filters. If it doesn't say " 99.97% at 0.3 microns " then it is not a HEPA filter. 2. The filter media is rated, not the product. For example, the Indoor Environmental Standards Organization is finalizing an ANSI standard for measuring the HEPA products. Approximately 20% of the commercial HEPA devices perform at less than the HEPA itself. Almost 80% of the HEPA vacuums perform at less than the HEPA itself. Consumer devices have not been tested. Does that mean they all are useless? No. Because performing slightly below 99.97% is still way better than a non-HEPA device. But it could very well mean that someone bought a HEPA filter and it did not provide the service needed. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- To be rated as a HEPA the filter media must capture 99.97% of 0.3 micron particles, not 3.0 micron. Most micro-organisms are 1 micron and larger. HEPA is very effective at removing intact spores. Fragments may be a different matter because some could be smaller than the HEPA can capture. Also, HEPA is generally ineffective against the molecules given off my mold and bacteria, VOCs for example. HEPA actually has a better capture rate somewhat below 0.3 and certainly above 0.3. But 0.3 micron is the measuring point because that is the most difficult size to capture. The capture curve is shaped like a " U " with the 0.3 at the very bottom. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- None if, because if it is difficult to contain them, and then microorganisms are smaller than what HEPA filter are rated that they can capture; 3 micron. So if its for mold, it is not the best option. I wish I could tell you. > > What brand hepa filters seem to work the best for home and auto? > > Thanks > > Tug > ---------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: DEFAULT.BMP Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10 Size: 358 bytes. Type: Unknown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 My son's doctor was recommending Alen Air and EL Foust Hepa filters as of the research they did last summer, and say these air filters are independently tested I believe with the filter media in the air filter units. He tells me that Austin Air (which was recommended to us by Dr. Gray) is not independently tested and when I looked on the web it appears to me that it only works at about 80% efficiency. I would do my own research which you should be able to do online. Blue Air is nice because it has a very quiet setting and also has some energy efficient units (air filters can really run up your electric bill if you are running them non stop) but some of the units are not good if you have MCS. Hope this helps. Dave, e-mail me direct and I can send you the specific model numbers recommended by our doctor. Sue V. >There are two other considertions with HEPA filters: > >1. Some products are identified as " HEPA like " or " HEPA type " >and are not true HEPA filters. If it doesn't say " 99.97% at 0.3 >microns " then it is not a HEPA filter. > >2. The filter media is rated, not the product. For example, the >Indoor Environmental Standards Organization is finalizing an >ANSI standard for measuring the HEPA products. Approximately >20% of the commercial HEPA devices perform at less than the >HEPA itself. Almost 80% of the HEPA vacuums perform at less >than the HEPA itself. Consumer devices have not been tested. > >Does that mean they all are useless? No. Because performing >slightly below 99.97% is still way better than a non-HEPA device. >But it could very well mean that someone bought a HEPA filter >and it did not provide the service needed. > >Carl Grimes >Healthy Habitats LLC > >- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 I do agree regarding the HEPA efficiency rating real world scenario to a certain point, however HEPA filters do not trap less than 3 micron particles, and 90% of microorganisms are smaller than 3 microns. Even particle dust like the Sahara is 2.74 micron, so an HEPA would not be as efficient at destroying microorganisms who hitchhike in the dust, as would be high intensity ultraviolet UV-C Germicidal irradiation. > > There are two other considertions with HEPA filters: > > 1. Some products are identified as " HEPA like " or " HEPA type " > and are not true HEPA filters. If it doesn't say " 99.97% at 0.3 > microns " then it is not a HEPA filter. > > 2. The filter media is rated, not the product. For example, the > Indoor Environmental Standards Organization is finalizing an > ANSI standard for measuring the HEPA products. Approximately > 20% of the commercial HEPA devices perform at less than the > HEPA itself. Almost 80% of the HEPA vacuums perform at less > than the HEPA itself. Consumer devices have not been tested. > > Does that mean they all are useless? No. Because performing > slightly below 99.97% is still way better than a non-HEPA device. > But it could very well mean that someone bought a HEPA filter > and it did not provide the service needed. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 Most purifiers do not accomplish the job they are intended for, according to EPA and other federal agencies. MCS is a very serious condition as all of us may know. If we need to use an air purifier as many call them, they should be able to take out (i.e., destroy) microorganisms survival capabilities and chemical emissions. Being aware of these details if we where to integrate carbon as some of us may believe we should, it should not be activated, instead one could use zeolite. Another thing is the housing and the filter media, some or not all, would be prohibited; like plastic. A metal housing is better with the proper coating so not to cause emissions. One more thing it is important to select a system that would do 3 or 4 air changes in the case of air filtration filter stages, and consider the furnisher, accessories and equipment in the house to select the correct capacity to have the proper coverage. > > My son's doctor was recommending Alen Air and EL Foust Hepa filters as > of the research they did last summer, and say these air filters are > independently tested I believe with the filter media in the air filter > units. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2010 Report Share Posted February 14, 2010 Sue Yes, from 2004 to 2006 I started doing research with different respiratory disease suffers,including myself, husband and asthmatic son; even spite the fact that there had been studies done or might have a track record the manufacturers. I am Pro Pulmonary health and these systems, must do what they are intended to do. Since 2005 I acquired air cleaner lines and, I would recommend and guarantee for filtration, just as long as we are talking about allergies or asthma, Health-Pro Plus from IQ Air, which I sleep with, or Air Medic Vocarb 5000 Green Feature Series from AllerAir with would be set up with the appropriate carbon or Zeolite bed, all metal body, organic filter, and HEPA. If we are talking about MCS suffers you can use AllerAir's but I prefer to advise the use of Sanuvox P900GX, another one that I also sleep with, this unit has a patented dual zone ultraviolet light, which would rid the air of both microorganisms contaminants and chemical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2010 Report Share Posted February 14, 2010 , I'm sure you are deriving great benefit from the purifiers you specified below, especially the Sanuvox P900GX which you sell. And I don't begrudge you that. What I do take exception to is you are presenting marketing information, belief, and personal experience as objective fact true for everyone and not true for other products. So bear with me while I respond to the more serious of my concerns. First, I fully agree that the materials used in the filter media, motors, and housing are critical for chemically intolerant individuals. I also agree that the end result for the user is paramount. Just because there is credible scientific evidence doesn't necessarily mean it is applicable or relevant to your situation or mine. This is extremely common in marketing of products. The science is presented with verification as if the product is performing according to the ultimate conditions of the science. As we all know on this site, very little science has been produced about real houses with real people in real exposure situations. But there are things known and verifiable. Some are even determined as definitions. For example, on Wikipedia, or any of the dozens of more factual sites from a Web search engine, you will read that " HEPA filters, by definition, remove at least 99.97% of airborne particles 0.3 micrometers (µm) in diameter. " Not 3.0 microns as you stated. The caveat, which I posted previously, is the actual HEPA media is not the same as the total device containing the HEPA media. Recent testing has demonstrated that the device often doesn't perform to HEPA standards. While this supports your argument, it does so for a very different reason. Which is important to avoid confusion and misplaced trust on related topics. I have difficulty with the Sanuvox site claims where the up front marketing information talks about " destroying " mold, bacteria, virus and chemical. But in the more technical areas, where most people won't look, they give more accurate information about killing, disabling, reducing, and removing pollutants. They also talk there about how long it takes to reduce levels of the various types of pollutants. It is not instantaneous. Some take as long as 10 minutes to be affected. It is not total. Rarely does the evidence support more than 90%, let alone 99% or 99.97%. In some cases it is not significant. For example, a 90% reduction of 10,000 spores still leaves 1000 spores. HEPA filters are test with 10,000 particles. 30 can get through and it passes as a HEPA filter. How many do you need to breath to become reactive? And that is just for particles, which can be individually counted. It is not true for chemicals whose individual molecules cannot be counted, so estimates (measurements) in parts per million are stated. But my greatest concern is they don't use (I couldn't find, anyway) any reference to the one objective, peer reviewed, statistically validated method of comparing the effectiveness of air purifiers. The Clean Air Delivery Rate, or CADR. A CADR of 200-300 is excellent (but not absolute). 80-120 or so is very acceptable. Below 50, approximately, isn't very good and is usually a waste of time and money. For example, the ozone producing air purifiers marketed all over the Web and which Sharper Image was forced to withdraw from the market were routinely estimated to have a CADR below 30. Yet they cost as much as HEPAs with a CADR of 200-300. That's like buying a bicycle but paying for a Porsche. Any UV generator will produce ozone. Sanuvox addresses this issue and claims independent verification of levels below that of electronic air filters on forced air systems or photo copiers. They don't produce the verification of that claim but I have no reason to doubt them based on how they present their technology. Even so, that is too high for some highly intolerant individuals. All that said, I have no doubt the Sanuvox products produce benefit for many people. But so does other equipment by other manufacturers. CADR is one reliable, objective, way to compare them. But even that is not fool proof. Sanuvox appears to not want to tout their effectiveness in terms of CADR. In the meantime, please check your claims about HEPA removing particles only above 3.0 microns and mold spores being smaller than 3 microns. Also, please disclose up front which equipment you sell and which you don't. We struggle enough with unreliable and confusing claims giving false hope. We need reliable information from trusted sources we can understand and trust. Therefore, if I have mischaracterized you please let us all know. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Sue Yes, from 2004 to 2006 I started doing research with different respiratory disease suffers,including myself, husband and asthmatic son; even spite the fact that there had been studies done or might have a track record the manufacturers. I am Pro Pulmonary health and these systems, must do what they are intended to do. Since 2005 I acquired air cleaner lines and, I would recommend and guarantee for filtration, just as long as we are talking about allergies or asthma, Health-Pro Plus from IQ Air, which I sleep with, or Air Medic Vocarb 5000 Green Feature Series from AllerAir with would be set up with the appropriate carbon or Zeolite bed, all metal body, organic filter, and HEPA. If we are talking about MCS suffers you can use AllerAir's but I prefer to advise the use of Sanuvox P900GX, another one that I also sleep with, this unit has a patented dual zone ultraviolet light, which would rid the air of both microorganisms contaminants and chemical. ---------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: DEFAULT.BMP Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10 Size: 358 bytes. Type: Unknown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 Yes I am and other respiratory suffers are receiving benefits from air cleaners. I understand you Carl as with everyone who has been exposed to contaminants. In every product there is marketing information, whatever the proof is when you experience using one is when you may determine its validity. As I stated I myself have used these air cleaners since 2005 and people that we have provide them to, with this technology, have also received the benefit. Concerning credible scientific evidence as has been discussed before with others, credible scientific evidence is not absolute nor binding, since it only expresses a statistical number sustained on a small sample, usually to little out of the population for which a universe is selected to give a -+ 5%. If we talk about revise data from mayor pharmaceutical companies, they present their allegation of consistency sustained on a small sample of 5000, 10,000, but never a population over the amount of people that are member of a nation. In the states for example there are over 300, 000,000 people and the places that we live are multiple locations with many variables that can affect any given study; so we agree that we cannot only relay " modern day statistic " , Medication as example can only work for some people and the worse of all is side effects that may cause other conditions. Here in this forum we see mold suffers talk about the side of effects of medication everyday, this works for me and this works for the other, it's a trial and error thing; there is no assurance. HEPA filters are rated at 99.97% as we both agree and yes they pick up particles as small as 3 microns (micrometers) or as you which to say 0.03, however as I have stated before in various setting I never got more than 60%, not 99.97% and that you also agree. I see HEPA filters as elements that I can be used, but sustained on real working scenarios in the work place or at homes. I see HEPA or any filtration means like people that are in this group, backup, everyone provides their experiences in order to get the facts as accurate as possible and hopefully we may come to benefical conclusions. A combination of filtration technologies and medias, can configure a systems providing the best backup possible that will do the job, but in most cases one needs to try it out for ones self; to see if it works. CADR is a rating for filters. Sterilizers using UV is not rated on CADR, it can't be rated on CADRs. Concerning time factors of an air filtration unit doing its job, sickness of a respiratory condition takes time to control the symptoms, and many cases there are only remedial, because modern day medicine cannot provide a cure, so people do what we do; look for the best alternatives, and we take care of ourselves. For this it takes time, better to wait and get something out of it, to not get anything. I see it this way: a pathology that in some cases took 10 years to develop, nothing is going to cure in hours, you need the right set of tools to tackle it, and time. I believe that air cleaning (microorganism sterilization and particle capture)is a must to get the oxygen from the air as clean as possible into the body, so the body may do its job of repairing, efficiently and effectively. I do not recall using saying mold spores, I used the word microorganism (bacteria, virus and chemicals), mold spores they could be 4 micron. I see microorganism control in today's world as necessary. This is part of life natures balance and we need to help out because we have overwhelm the environment with toxic waste for which nature is lashing back at us. I believe that we need to take responsibility creating sustainable conditions that will enhance our environments properties, thus permit Pro Healthy living, and since according to WHO, this year (2010) people suffering from COPD will be four times up, we need to provide the means to protect ourselves more in an indoor enviroment. Toxic Air Waste (biological, chemical and environmental)can hurt us, but will not if its kept at bay. Beside air,I would not want to leave out, water, food and land that needs to be taken care off. Air cleaning products from one manufacturer to another The importance is to choose one according to seriousness of the individuals' condition and the validity of the data presented by the manufacture or supplier. While all data is not necessarily reliable, some of it is; so the selection is made based on probability. There is no such thing as totally secure, there are levels of security and we can only relay on what is presented to us. However another thing that is an important factor is warranties, if the manufacture and supplier is willing to stand in back of their claims. Concerning the products that we sale, each case is independently treated according to the person and their environment, however some are Sanuvox patented dual zone ultraviolet GX configuration, AllerAir carbon , engineer products without carbon activation or with zeolite, some system could carry an organic filter, HEPA, element combination's etc. We also carry IQ Air which we consider to have a contained system. Take Care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 , Thank you for your response and your disclosure of what you sell. I won't waste anyone's time detailing all the specifics of where I agree and where I disagree with you, except for the factual points about HEPA filters in one of your sentences. 1. You continue to state that HEPA can " pick up particles as small as 3 microns (micrometers) or as you which to say 0.03 (sic)... " No, HEPA is tested at 0.3 microns and must remove at least 99.97% of the 0.3 micron particles (not 0.03 microns). Microns and micrometers are the same thing, one millionth of a meter. In the lab or factory they insert precisely 10,000 particles of DOP into the filter media and measure how many come through the other side. If there are 30 or less particles which come through then the media is certified as meeting HEPA standards. This means all particles larger than 0.3 microns will be removed. Because particles can be captured by three different physical forces HEPA media actually captures particles less than 0.3 microns. The correct statement is HEPA captures particles less than 0.3 microns plus larger ones, including 3 micron particles and 30 micron particles and so forth. 2. The rest of your sentence is " however as I have stated before in various setting I never got more than 60%, not 99.97% and that you also agree. " No, I don't agree. First, how did you measure the efficiency to determine you never got more than 60%? I know you didn't use DOP. It's a carcinogen. And the only other way to measure it is with a laser particle counter where isokenetic forces must be considered. So how did you determine 60% efficiency? Also, you are confusing the HEPA media by itself with the entire purifier device which has HEPA media in it. The HEPA media can perform perfectly. But sometimes air leaks around the edges of the media so not all the air is filtered allowing particles of all sizes to pass through the device. Which means the HEPA could be 100% but the vacuum cleaner or air purifier which has HEPA media doesn't perform like the HEPA media by itself. I do agree this is a serious problem with many products. However, recent testing according to the pending ANSI standard perform at the 99.97% level and higher. Again, I appreciate your response but facts need to be correct. The rest we can debate. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Yes I am and other respiratory suffers are receiving benefits from air cleaners. I understand you Carl as with everyone who has been exposed to contaminants. In every product there is marketing information, whatever the proof is when you experience using one is when you may determine its validity. As I stated I myself have used these air cleaners since 2005 and people that we have provide them to, with this technology, have also received the benefit. Concerning credible scientific evidence as has been discussed before with others, credible scientific evidence is not absolute nor binding, since it only expresses a statistical number sustained on a small sample, usually to little out of the population for which a universe is selected to give a -+ 5%. If we talk about revise data from mayor pharmaceutical companies, they present their allegation of consistency sustained on a small sample of 5000, 10,000, but never a population over the amount of people that are member of a nation. In the states for example there are over 300, 000,000 people and the places that we live are multiple locations with many variables that can affect any given study; so we agree that we cannot only relay " modern day statistic " , Medication as example can only work for some people and the worse of all is side effects that may cause other conditions. Here in this forum we see mold suffers talk about the side of effects of medication everyday, this works for me and this works for the other, it's a trial and error thing; there is no assurance. HEPA filters are rated at 99.97% as we both agree and yes they pick up particles as small as 3 microns (micrometers) or as you which to say 0.03, however as I have stated before in various setting I never got more than 60%, not 99.97% and that you also agree. I see HEPA filters as elements that I can be used, but sustained on real working scenarios in the work place or at homes. I see HEPA or any filtration means like people that are in this group, backup, everyone provides their experiences in order to get the facts as accurate as possible and hopefully we may come to benefical conclusions. A combination of filtration technologies and medias, can configure a systems providing the best backup possible that will do the job, but in most cases one needs to try it out for ones self; to see if it works. CADR is a rating for filters. Sterilizers using UV is not rated on CADR, it can't be rated on CADRs. Concerning time factors of an air filtration unit doing its job, sickness of a respiratory condition takes time to control the symptoms, and many cases there are only remedial, because modern day medicine cannot provide a cure, so people do what we do; look for the best alternatives, and we take care of ourselves. For this it takes time, better to wait and get something out of it, to not get anything. I see it this way: a pathology that in some cases took 10 years to develop, nothing is going to cure in hours, you need the right set of tools to tackle it, and time. I believe that air cleaning (microorganism sterilization and particle capture)is a must to get the oxygen from the air as clean as possible into the body, so the body may do its job of repairing, efficiently and effectively. I do not recall using saying mold spores, I used the word microorganism (bacteria, virus and chemicals), mold spores they could be 4 micron. I see microorganism control in today's world as necessary. This is part of life natures balance and we need to help out because we have overwhelm the environment with toxic waste for which nature is lashing back at us. I believe that we need to take responsibility creating sustainable conditions that will enhance our environments properties, thus permit Pro Healthy living, and since according to WHO, this year (2010) people suffering from COPD will be four times up, we need to provide the means to protect ourselves more in an indoor enviroment. Toxic Air Waste (biological, chemical and environmental)can hurt us, but will not if its kept at bay. Beside air,I would not want to leave out, water, food and land that needs to be taken care off. Air cleaning products from one manufacturer to another The importance is to choose one according to seriousness of the individuals' condition and the validity of the data presented by the manufacture or supplier. While all data is not necessarily reliable, some of it is; so the selection is made based on probability. There is no such thing as totally secure, there are levels of security and we can only relay on what is presented to us. However another thing that is an important factor is warranties, if the manufacture and supplier is willing to stand in back of their claims. Concerning the products that we sale, each case is independently treated according to the person and their environment, however some are Sanuvox patented dual zone ultraviolet GX configuration, AllerAir carbon , engineer products without carbon activation or with zeolite, some system could carry an organic filter, HEPA, element combination's etc. We also carry IQ Air which we consider to have a contained system. Take Care ---------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: DEFAULT.BMP Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10 Size: 358 bytes. Type: Unknown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 Carl it's a question of semantics of some of the words I used from one language to another. I see we do agree on filters, however if its 50 or if its 60 or whatever; they do not necessarily meet there rating in the real world working scenarios. The reading on HEPA filter is done in pharmaceutical settings by some of our customers. Sterilization and particle capture can do the job, with the right combination of features. > > , > > Thank you for your response and your disclosure of what you sell. > I won't waste anyone's time detailing all the specifics of where I > agree and where I disagree with you, except for the factual points > about HEPA filters in one of your sentences. > > 1. You continue to state that HEPA can " pick up particles as > small as 3 microns (micrometers) or as you which to say 0.03 > (sic)... " > > No, HEPA is tested at 0.3 microns and must remove at least > 99.97% of the 0.3 micron particles (not 0.03 microns). Microns > and micrometers are the same thing, one millionth of a meter. In > the lab or factory they insert precisely 10,000 particles of DOP > into the filter media and measure how many come through the > other side. If there are 30 or less particles which come through > then the media is certified as meeting HEPA standards. This > means all particles larger than 0.3 microns will be removed. > > Because particles can be captured by three different physical > forces HEPA media actually captures particles less than 0.3 > microns. The correct statement is HEPA captures particles less > than 0.3 microns plus larger ones, including 3 micron particles > and 30 micron particles and so forth. > > > 2. The rest of your sentence is " however as I have stated before > in various setting I never got more than 60%, not 99.97% and that > you also agree. " > > No, I don't agree. First, how did you measure the efficiency to > determine you never got more than 60%? I know you didn't use > DOP. It's a carcinogen. And the only other way to measure it is > with a laser particle counter where isokenetic forces must be > considered. So how did you determine 60% efficiency? > > Also, you are confusing the HEPA media by itself with the entire > purifier device which has HEPA media in it. The HEPA media can > perform perfectly. But sometimes air leaks around the edges of > the media so not all the air is filtered allowing particles of all sizes > to pass through the device. Which means the HEPA could be > 100% but the vacuum cleaner or air purifier which has HEPA > media doesn't perform like the HEPA media by itself. I do agree > this is a serious problem with many products. However, recent > testing according to the pending ANSI standard perform at the > 99.97% level and higher. > > Again, I appreciate your response but facts need to be correct. > The rest we can debate. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > > ----- > Yes I am and other respiratory suffers are receiving benefits from air > cleaners. > > I understand you Carl as with everyone who has been exposed to > contaminants. In every product there is marketing information, > whatever the proof is when you experience using one is when you may > determine its validity. As I stated I myself have used these air cleaners > since 2005 and people that we have provide them to, with this > technology, have also received the benefit. > > Concerning credible scientific evidence as has been discussed before with > others, credible scientific evidence is not absolute nor binding, since it > only expresses a statistical number sustained on a small sample, usually > to little out of the population for which a universe is selected to give a -+ > 5%. > > If we talk about revise data from mayor pharmaceutical companies, they > present their allegation of consistency sustained on a small sample of > 5000, 10,000, but never a population over the amount of people that are > member of a nation. In the states for example there are over 300, > 000,000 people and the places that we live are multiple locations with > many variables that can affect any given study; so we agree that we > cannot only relay " modern day statistic " , > > Medication as example can only work for some people and the worse of > all is side effects that may cause other conditions. Here in this forum we > see mold suffers talk about the side of effects of medication everyday, > this works for me and this works for the other, it's a trial and error thing; > there is no assurance. > > HEPA filters are rated at 99.97% as we both agree and yes they pick up > particles as small as 3 microns (micrometers) or as you which to say > 0.03, however as I have stated before in various setting I never got more > than 60%, not 99.97% and that you also agree. > > I see HEPA filters as elements that I can be used, but sustained on real > working scenarios in the work place or at homes. I see HEPA or any > filtration means like people that are in this group, backup, everyone > provides their experiences in order to get the facts as accurate as possible > and hopefully we may come to benefical conclusions. > > A combination of filtration technologies and medias, can configure a > systems providing the best backup possible that will do the job, but in > most cases one needs to try it out for ones self; to see if it works. CADR is > a rating for filters. Sterilizers using UV is not rated on CADR, it can't be > rated on CADRs. > > Concerning time factors of an air filtration unit doing its job, sickness of > a respiratory condition takes time to control the symptoms, and many > cases there are only remedial, because modern day medicine cannot > provide a cure, so people do what we do; look for the best alternatives, > and we take care of ourselves. For this it takes time, better to wait and > get something out of it, to not get anything. > > I see it this way: a pathology that in some cases took 10 years to develop, > nothing is going to cure in hours, you need the right set of tools to tackle > it, and time. I believe that air cleaning (microorganism sterilization and > particle capture)is a must to get the oxygen from the air as clean as > possible into the body, so the body may do its job of repairing, efficiently > and effectively. > > I do not recall using saying mold spores, I used the word microorganism > (bacteria, virus and chemicals), mold spores they could be 4 micron. I > see microorganism control in today's world as necessary. This is part of > life natures balance and we need to help out because we have overwhelm > the environment with toxic waste for which nature is lashing back at us. > > I believe that we need to take responsibility creating sustainable > conditions that will enhance our environments properties, thus permit > Pro Healthy living, and since according to WHO, this year (2010) people > suffering from COPD will be four times up, we need to provide the means > to protect ourselves more in an indoor enviroment. Toxic Air Waste > (biological, chemical and environmental)can hurt us, but will not if its > kept at bay. Beside air,I would not want to leave out, water, food and > land that needs to be taken care off. > > Air cleaning products from one manufacturer to another > > The importance is to choose one according to seriousness of the > individuals' condition and the validity of the data presented by the > manufacture or supplier. While all data is not necessarily reliable, some > of it is; so the selection is made based on probability. > > There is no such thing as totally secure, there are levels of security and > we can only relay on what is presented to us. However another thing that > is an important factor is warranties, if the manufacture and supplier is > willing to stand in back of their claims. > > Concerning the products that we sale, each case is independently treated > according to the person and their environment, however some are > Sanuvox patented dual zone ultraviolet GX configuration, AllerAir > carbon , engineer products without carbon activation or with zeolite, > some system could carry an organic filter, HEPA, element combination's > etc. We also carry IQ Air which we consider to have a contained system. > > Take Care > > > > > > ---------- > > The following section of this message contains a file attachment > prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. > If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, > you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. > If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. > > ---- File information ----------- > File: DEFAULT.BMP > Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10 > Size: 358 bytes. > Type: Unknown > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 Patilla Sanuvox is made and located in St t, Canada, near the US border Swiss made IQAir is based out of California. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 Thanks. What do they cost? Barth www.presenting.net/sbs/sbs.html SUBMIT YOUR DOCTOR: www.presenting.net/sbs/molddoctors.html --- R> Patilla R> Sanuvox is made and located in St t, Canada, near the US border R> Swiss made IQAir is based out of California. R> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.