Do you remember that old TV show, Mission Impossible? Finding the best air purifier could easily be a “Mission Impossible” premise. The only leads you have are Internet smoke reviews of air purifiers. These continue to increase by hundreds daily. None of them tell you anything useful. You will die trying.
I believe you sincerely want what is best for your family and that you really want to make a good choice of air purifier.
But if you’ll bear with me for a moment, I want to give you a more comprehensive perspective of the task before you. And of course, show you the way to achieve what you want.
I am a Webmaster. I own a site about air purifiers. I have done hundreds of hours of research, more than you likely ever will. I picked the Web’s offerings apart with tools not available to you. I also have a personal interest in this subject as my wife is severely afflicted by MCS, asthma and allergies.
But enough about me, this article is about reviews of air purifiers and whether they will serve your interests. They will not. They are grossly biased. They are based on inadequate testing or poorly constructed tests and misinformed criteria.
Persons that have never owned an air purifier in Eastern European and Asian countries write reviews of air purifiers in poor English for a few dollars per review. Some pages promising reviews of air purifiers are not written by persons at all but are churned out by computer software designed to scrape the web for content to regurgitate. I know, as a Webmaster I’ve seen all this and know how easily garbage is posted to the web.
Setting the dismal offerings of the Web aside, let’s consider the respectable print media. In the United States, one of the most respected consumer product testing and advocacy journals is Consumer Reports. Would you expect Consumer Reports’ reviews of air purifiers to be sound and dependable? You’d be wrong.
Though Consumer Reports is certainly sincere in its effort there are flaws in its reviews of air purifiers that are a disservice to readers.
First, they select only the products most commonly found on the market. This makes sense for cars. Why test a Roll Royce when thousands more are going to buy a Toyota? Unfortunately in the realm of air purifiers, it is well-heeled marketing companies that dominate not manufacturers of quality air purifiers. For that reason, the best air cleaners are never considered in their reviews of air purifiers.
Additionally, the test criteria can and has grossly affected ratings. A recent correction in a single point produced the dramatic effect of reducing their first place air purifier to number twenty-eight the following year. In fact, that air purifier had been rated as number one for fifteen years straight.
What changed? After years of complaint by quality air purifier manufacturers like IQAir, Consumer Reports finally realized that ozone production by an air purifier is dangerous, unacceptable and should be considered negatively in reviews.
The question remains, should the readers that trusted their reviews of air purifiers for fifteen years looked elsewhere for the truth? What about now?
Even now better air purifiers are at a disadvantage. Most buyers are seeking odor and chemical removal, not just particle removal. Consumer Reports only evaluates particle removal. They also rate air purifiers on total airflow. Yet air purifiers that include the additional filtration elements needed to remove odors and chemicals necessarily have a reduced airflow. The very thing that enables these air purifiers to give consumers what they want becomes a liability in Consumer Reports’ reviews of air purifiers.
I don’t want to come across as raking Consumer Reports over the coals. They serve on