Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Ken, I read the paper that you provided a link to. It compares the efficiency of 2 different ozone generators with regards to killing various organisms on stainless steel surfaces. No mention of photo catalytic reactions. Did you perhaps post the wrong link? The "ozonelite" says on its web site that it does not produce any ozone. As a side note about the paper that was linked - there is no positive or negative control data in their results. I would have at least expected a negative control showing that the effect of ozone was greater than would have occurred without treatment over the same timeframe. And as they discuss the deficiencies of chlorine as a treatment one would have expected to see comparison data. For a positive control I would have thought comparing to UV irradiation would have been useful. They do say that untreated sample testing is "ongoing". However, I dont see how they can draw conclusions on efficacy without having their control data in hand. Stuart McCallum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:49:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Re: The answer!!!Thank you Ron for calling our attention to your field tests of January 2005.I've just reviewed your messages and would add that I have an Ozonelite installed in the bedroom closet and one in my basement office. Had them running as replacement lightbulbs for eight months. They are good deodorizers. No mustiness whatsoever in the basement and the bedroom closet smells fresh the year round and with land's summer humidity that's something.For those that like peer reviewed tests here's a recent one using the same technology:http://fss.k-state.edu/research/reports/OrtegaenHatesohlMarsden200510.pdf<http://fss.k-state.edu/research/reports/OrtegaenHatesohlMarsden200510.pdf>Ken Gibala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Stuart, You are correct. I now wish I hadn't bothered to reference the report as it is a phase one [preliminary] report not yet peer reviewed. The final report will be out after publication in the journals probably within ten months and I'm understanding will be part of other tests. What is discussed is a comparison of the old ozone generator marketed as the "Breeze" with the hydroxyl and hydro peroxide generator referred to as the Radiant Catalytic Ionization [RCI] generator which is suppose to put out no measurable ozone similar to the Ozonelite we have been discussing. The paper compares an old ozone generator with photocatalysis technology where no measurable ozone is released. Your observation has merit and I'm sure Dr. Marsden at Kansas State would be happy to answer such questions since the paper is from his web site. Ken ========= Re: Re: The answer!!!Thank you Ron for calling our attention to your field tests of January 2005.I've just reviewed your messages and would add that I have an Ozonelite installed in the bedroom closet and one in my basement office. Had them running as replacement lightbulbs for eight months. They are good deodorizers. No mustiness whatsoever in the basement and the bedroom closet smells fresh the year round and with land's summer humidity that's something.For those that like peer reviewed tests here's a recent one using the same technology:http://fss.k-state.edu/research/reports/OrtegaenHatesohlMarsden200510.pdf<http://fss.k-state.edu/research/reports/OrtegaenHatesohlMarsden200510.pdf>Ken Gibala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Friends and colleagues: I just read the peer-reviewed test (below). It shows reductions levels of crud on stainless steel plates after 0,2,4, 8, and 24 hours of " treatment " . However, it has NO data on what happens to the same stainless steel coupons if they are held for the same length of time, without treatment, but perhaps in the dark, or exposed to a similar-wattage lamp. Consequently, this paper proves nothing about the effects of the lamps on those coupons. Interestingly, a caller once described doing the " onion demonstration " when she made a mistake. She cut an onion, let everyone smell it, held it in the ozone-generator output for X minutes, then when everyone re-smelled it, the odor was gone. And this worked, even when she failed to install the ozone plate in the device! That tells me that the onion demonstration works due to the drying effects of the moving air from the fan, not from the ozone. Likewise, these reductions might have more to do with time, or with some other exposure not unique to these bulbs, and not to the bulbs themselves. Many of us recall that the manufacturer of this equipment was once fined a penalty by a Federal court of $1,000 per day (or $1.49 million) for " inaccuracies " in their statements. Henry Slack, P.E. U.S. EPA Region 4 Indoor Air Program For more assistance, try EPA's Web site, www.epa.gov/iaq or call EPA's Indoor Air Quality Information Clearinghouse . Experts are available 9-5 M-F >For those that like peer reviewed tests here's a recent one using the same >technology: > >http://fss.k-state.edu/research/reports/OrtegaenHatesohlMarsden200510.pdf< >http://fss.k-state.edu/research/reports/OrtegaenHatesohlMarsden200510.pdf > > >Ken Gibala 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.