Study: Most of the internal air purifiers can "more than benefit damage"

A new study revealed that most air purification techniques designed to prevent the transmission of viral infection such as “flu” and “Corona” have not been adequately tested on people, and that the potential risks are still fully understood. The researchers analyzed about 700 studies published between 1929 and 2024, and this research focused on air purification techniques such as HEPA filters, UV rays, ions and advanced ventilation systems. Despite the widespread distribution of these devices in homes, schools and public buildings, the study found that only 9% of research actually treated the effect of these technologies on reducing diseases among humans. Air purification devices work with multiple technologies aimed at removing pollutants from the air and improving their quality within closed places, and the most common of these devices depend on the HEPA that adds microscopic molecules, such as dust, pollen and animal chairs, and its efficiency is about 99.97% of the molecules. Some devices add UV technology used to sterilize air and kill of viruses and bacteria by destroying their DNA, but its effectiveness depends on the intensity of light and the duration of exposure, and ozone can be born as a harmful side product. We do not say that these techniques do not work, but that we rather say that we do not yet know adequate Lisa Peru- a professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado, as there are also identification devices that are negative charges associated with portable particles in the air, become heavier and fall on the surfaces, but that they do not remove the pollution, can be. Some devices use plasma or optical stimulation techniques, while advanced systems include mechanical ventilation units that bring fresh air from the outside and produce polluted air, which is considered one of the most effective solutions in the long run, especially when combined with high quality filters. Therefore, the efficiency of air purification devices vary according to the used technology, and it is always preferable to choose the devices that were subject to independent tests and which were effective in realistic environments without producing harmful materials. Studies and published the study in the Annals of Internal Medicine and led by researchers at the University of Colorado anchors in the United States in collaboration with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We were surprised that most of the research was done in closed laboratory rooms, not in realistic environments that people live, work or study,” the author, Lisa Peru, a professor of internal medicine at Colorado University. “We need stronger studies that focus on real health results, such as low infection rates, not just molecules in the air,” Peru added. The majority of studies that have reviewed the team indirect indicators, such as comics, dust molecules or harmless microbes, were used instead of detecting viruses or real pathogenic bacteria, while few studies followed or people using these devices had less infection. The lead author in the study, Amir BadusFili, co -professor of the University of Colorado, said his part that many of these techniques are theoretically promising. “But we simply don’t know if it’s effective on the ground, people use it in their homes and schools to protect their families, but science has not yet accompanied the promises of advertising,” BadusFili added, noting that “some devices could harm more than they would.” Health risks, and despite the promotion of its role in the purification of the air, the study expressed concern about possible health risks associated with these devices, as a very small number of research has been displaced, such as emphrian, monitored, which can irritate the lungs and increase the severity of respiratory diseases. The study has shown that many technologies, such as iONE devices, plasma -based technology and UV systems, can produce ozone, but safety assessments of their long -term impact within homes and workplaces are very rare. The researchers pointed out that ozone and other chemicals released by some air purification devices can harm the respiratory system, especially in children or patients with chronic respiratory diseases. They emphasized that the consumer should be fulfilled or the manufacturer provides information on possible harmful emissions of the device, and whether there are ways to reduce them, and they have warned that “awareness of possible risks is a significant component to make enlightened decisions.” The study requested that the development of a new generation of field studies conducted in realistic environments such as classrooms and hospitals, focusing on detecting infection rates instead of measuring the number of molecules in the air. The researchers also emphasize the importance of assessing side effects, economic feasibility, environmental impact and the extent of access to these technologies in different environments. Air pollution .. The World Health Organization, Levels of Air Pollution have been high and sturdy for the past six years. The highest pollution rates in the Eastern Mediterranean and Southeast Asia, followed by Africa and the west of the Pacific. Africa is suffering from a serious shortage of air pollution data, although the coverage has recently been improved. Europe records the largest number of websites that report pollution data. The lowest levels of pollution are found in high -income countries, especially in Europe and the Americas. In some rich European cities, pollution reduces an average life expectancy between two months to 24 months. The research team also recommended the development of a united group of “health outcomes” to assess the effectiveness of these devices, which facilitates the comparison between different studies and makes their results more useful to target public health policy. The researchers also emphasized that public health decisions should be built on strong and independent evidence. “We do not say that these technologies do not work, but that we rather say that we do not know sufficiently. Many studies are funded by companies that produce these devices, which increase the suspicion of interest clashes. And until we get better information, people deserve complete transparency.” At the end of the study, researchers recommended that consumers who consider buying air purifiers or new ventilation systems to reduce the transmission of infection, to choose the techniques that have undergone independent tests in realistic environments, and avoid products that can produce ozone or other chemical pollution. But according to researchers, the most important of all is not to forget the approved traditional procedures: “Improving ventilation, opening windows and regular cleaning.”