Health Benefits vs. Disbenefits from Indoor Air Cleaners
This 90-minute webinar by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discusses the effectiveness of various strategies used by commercial air cleaners that claim to improve indoor air quality.
View Notes
Summary of findings
- None of them is a "scam" from a scientific standpoint: All of the strategies included in the cited study can disinfect the air to some extent. Based on the net benefit calculations, products that primarily rely on filters (MERV 13+ or HEPA) and activated carbon are arguably the best options. (In that regard, DIY Corsi-Rosenthal boxes are a particularly cost-effective alternative.)
- Meanwhile, products that primarily rely on the intentional generation of ozone, hydroxyls, and/or ions should arguably be avoided (at least for occupied spaces) due to their potential of generating extra pollution in the form of PM2.5 (which could potentially outweigh the benefits from cleaning the air), while germicidal UV might make sense "in special circumstances" with a heightened risk of infection.
- Regardless of the exact approach being used, CO2 sensors should be used throughout public spaces to identify the locations and circumstances that need additional ventilation and filtration.
