Insurance & Payment Info (Adapted from Consumer Reports, May 2005) Ads for air cleaners from Sharper Image and Oreck include a Seal of Truth from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of American (AAFA). Sharper Image ads also display a Seal of Approval from the British Allergy Foundation, now known as Allergy UK. What the seals don't tell you. The AAFA's Seal of Truth program is open to manufacturers who submit a $5,000 application fee. According to the AAFA, companies are asked to submit "independent" research for review by a panel of experts, who determine whether a product's performance meets its claims. If a panel says it does, manufacturers can apply the seal to that product for two years. The AAFA states on its Web site that its expert panel includes M.D.'s, Ph.D.'s, and Masters of Public Health. Michael Tringale, an AAFA spokesman, would not identify its experts, citing confidentiality concerns. Nor would Tringale or Sharper Image show us research submitted as part of the seal program.

But the AAFA's literature disclosed two points that the air cleaner ads don't mention. One is that its seal is not an endorsement or statement of clinical efficacy. Yet the words on the seal for Sharper Image's Ionic Breeze imply otherwise. Allergy UK's Seal of Approval program is somewhat like the AAFA's, though it says its seal is an endorsement. A manufacturer submits a fee for new testing by an "independent scientific consultant" at the University College Worcester or a review of its own independent tests. According to the British group, a 39 member panel of experts sets specific protocols for each product. Allergy UK would not disclose detailed information about its review protocol. What's more, the foundation states on his Web site that its endorsement does not mean that a product will necessarily reduce an allergy sufferer's symptoms. What the studies don't say. Studies touted in Sharper Image ads came under scrutiny last year in Sharper Image's lawsuit against Consumers Union.

Court testimony and documents revealed information absent from the ads. For one, documents showed that a researcher had been receiving a $6,000 monthly retainer from Sharper Image for research used by the company to support the sale of its Ionic Breeze. air purifier for toiletsThe company also provided research grants to a university professor and author of two reports about the Ionic Breeze prepared at Sharper Image's request, and compensated others whose research was cited.do air purifiers work australia In November 2004, Federal Judge Maxine Chesney dismissed Sharper Image's suit, holding that there was no reasonable probability that Consumers Unions' findings were false and that Sharper Image's studies provided no basis for challenging those findings.cd laser lens cleaner disc

After months of testing and investigation by Consumer Reports researchers, the following findings were noted: Many ionizing air cleaners did a poor job of removing particles from the air. Two separate tests in a sealed room and in an open lab show that some can create significant levels of ozone. Ozone is a growing concern. People with asthma and respiratory allergies are especially sensitive to it. Some ads include endorsements that mean little. Consider low or no cost air cleaning alternative. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Lung Association (ALA) recommend the following tips for improving indoor air environments:Minimize candles, incense, and woodburning fires, and use unscented cleaners. Wash linens in hot water. Keep dust sensitive people out of the area when vacuuming. Also be sure to keep solvents and pesticides outdoors. Keep your home ventilated. Use outdoor venting exhaust fans in kitchen, bath, and laundry areas to reduce moisture and airborne particles that can breed respiratory irritants.

Maintain heating and cooling equipment, chimneys, and vents to minimize the presence of carbon monoxide in your living space. If you buy an air cleaner, choose one that works. Allergy & Immunology Associates of Michigan recommends HEPA air cleaners (see our handout entitled Choosing an Air Cleaner).Copyright and License information Ionizing air cleaners—those staples of infomercials and splashy magazine ads—are not only ineffective at removing contaminants from indoor air, but also may emit enough ozone to be a health concern. The effects may be even greater in people with respiratory problems, who make up 80% of the buyers of such devices. Those are the conclusions reached in tests of the units described in the May 2005 Consumer Reports (CR).CR tested five units (including the top-selling Ionic Breeze from The Sharper Image) and confirmed results reported in October 2003 rating most of the air cleaners “poor” at removing dust and tobacco smoke from the indoor environment.

This time around, pollen was added as well, with similarly disappointing results. The cleaners were also tested for generation of ozone, a respiratory irritant. The results showed that some of the least effective models also emitted potentially harmful ozone levels.“We felt that it was particularly important to notify our subscribers that these air cleaners not only don’t remove particulates from the air, but they also put ozone into it,” says Jeff Asher, vice president and technical director of Consumers Union, the publisher of CR.There is no regulatory standard for ozone emission by air cleaners; manufacturers claim to adhere to a voluntary standard of 50 parts per billion (ppb), a limit established by the Food and Drug Administration for medical devices. CR used Underwriters Laboratories Standard 867 to measure the units’ ozone levels from 2 inches away in a sealed polyethylene room. All five machines failed that test.To more accurately reflect actual use conditions, CR also tested the devices in an open laboratory, from distances of 2 inches and 3 feet.

Two units failed this this test; the other three (including the Ionic Breeze) produced levels of 26–48 ppb at 2 inches and 2–18 ppb at 3 feet—still high enough by CR’s estimation to be of concern. “The levels were not what I would call of great imminent risk,” says Asher, “but it was of significant risk in the sense of being in an indoor environment, where we just don’t need more ozone.”The Sharper Image, which unsuccessfully sued CR over its 2003 report, has fired back, assailing the magazine’s credibility. In a 6 April 2005 press statement, CEO Richard Thalheimer called the article “irresponsible in the way it casually and unscientifically speculates about public health and safety. . . . We continue to emphatically disagree with Consumer Union’s methods in evaluating the Ionic Breeze.”But health and engineering experts find the CR results troubling. “These levels make these devices inappropriate to use for asthmatic patients and for patients with respiratory disease,” says Peyton Eggleston, interim director of the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.Richard Shaughnessy, an environmental engineer at the University of Tulsa who has researched air cleaners for many years, concurs, pointing out that “not only are people with respiratory illnesses and asthma the population targeted by most of these air cleaners