Coronavirus
Technology Solutions
Ionization
Device ‘Preys on
People’
Open Letter to
Address the Use
of Electronic
Air Cleaning
Equipment in
Buildings
______________________________________________________________________________
More than 500
air treatment
devices will be
disconnected
from Newark
classrooms after
the school
district learned
that a class
action lawsuit
was filed
alleging the
company that
makes the
devices misrepresented
how well they
protect against
the spread of
the coronavirus
reports
Joseph Geha of
the
Bay Area
News Group.
The suit also
claimed the
devices can
actually make
the air worse.
The “needlepoint
bipolar
ionization
devices,” from
North
Carolina-based
Global Plasma
Solutions, were
initially
approved for
purchase by the
Newark Unified
School District
board in
November to help
eliminate
potential
coronavirus
transmission in
classrooms, and
to provide
“peace of mind”
to students and
staff, officials
said.
In all,
Superintendent
Mark Triplett
said during an
April board
meeting the
district had
purchased 556 of
the devices and
installed them
for a total of
$359,945.
“They are
considered the
top in terms of
addressing and
killing the
virus,” Triplett
said in April
about the
devices, as the
district sought
to reassure
staff, students,
and parents the
air in
classrooms would
be safe for a
return to
school.
The school
district was
sold on the
devices in large
part by a
presentation
from a vendor of
the machines
touting their
effectiveness in
killing the
virus that
causes COVID-19.
However, the
lawsuit claims
the manufacturer
“overstates” the
ability of its
product to do
that, and
“deceptively”
represents
testing of its
own product as
independent, and
“preys on people
desperate to
cleanse the
air,” all in an
effort to enrich
itself.
The products
from Global
Plasma Solutions
actually “make
the air worse
for people”
because they
reduce “some
volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)
but actually
increase the
concentration of
other VOCs,” the
lawsuit, filed
on May 7,
claims.
Triplett sent an
email blast to
the entire
district on
Tuesday, saying
the district had
“been made
aware” of a
proposed class
action lawsuit
filed against
Global Plasma
Solutions in
Delaware federal
court earlier
this month.
Though Triplett
noted the
devices had met
various safety
standards
reviewed by
governmental
agencies and a
heating and air
conditioning
professional
association, he
said, “in an
abundance of
caution, Newark
Unified has
decided to
disconnect all
these devices
from our HVAC
units until
further notice.”
The district had
also purchased
and installed
air purifiers
with HEPA
filters for
“every classroom
and school
office space
prior to the
return to
in-person
learning on
April 29,”
Triplett said in
the letter.
“As always, the
health and
safety of our
students and
staff remain our
highest
priority, and we
will continue to
monitor this
situation as it
evolves,” he
said.
Triplett did not
respond to
Geha’s request
for an interview
for this news
article.
Triplett, in the
April meeting,
said the devices
are being “used
in many
different
districts across
the country” as
well as in
businesses and
airports.
“I know Palo
Alto Unified
uses (them),”
Triplett said,
“as does Orinda,
Lafayette, and
Berkeley.”
In a statement
emailed to this
news
organization
Thursday, a
spokesperson for
Global Plasma
Solutions said
in part, “GPS
technology
works, is safe
and can play an
important role
in making
comprehensive
air cleaning and
filtration
systems even
more effective.”
The company
said, “the
lawsuit is
without merit
and based on
flawed research,
and we will be
filing a motion
to dismiss the
case in the
coming days.”
The company said
it reached out
to Newark
Unified to
“share
additional data
and answer any
questions they
may have. We are
also extending
an offer to
conduct onsite
testing to
verify the
safety of this
technology and
the added
benefits and
confidence
bipolar
ionization
delivers for
Newark’s
schools.”
In November
2020, the Newark
Unified School
District board
heard a
presentation
from Nicole
Seiderman of the
San Jose-based
Norman S. Wright
Corporation, a
vendor, touting
the advances in
technology by
Global Plasma
Solutions.
Seiderman noted
the manufacturer
had partnerships
with the
aviation
industry that
allowed them to
test their
devices against
the virus.
“It found that
COVID-19 was
killed within 30
minutes to a
99.4 percent
kill rate. So
they have tested
their ionization
product directly
on our biggest
concern today,”
Seiderman said.
But that same
claim was one of
several called
out in the
lawsuit as
misleading or
false, citing
information from
Boeing which did
“limited
testing” of the
product and “was
unable to
replicate
supplier
results.”
The aircraft
builder wrote
that “air
ionization has
not shown
significant
disinfection
effectiveness,”
the lawsuit
said.
Seiderman also
said that
“Global Plasma
Solutions” had
“figured out how
to do ionization
with no harmful
byproducts,”
another claim
challenged by
the lawsuit.
The district
said at the time
the devices would
be paid for out
of CARES Act
funds the
district
received.
Staff
recommended the
purchase after
conducting
“research in
conjunction”
with consultants
including
Lafayette-based
McCracken
Woodman,
Concord-based
RGMK, “and in
consultation
with other
districts and
industry
manufacture
representatives,”
staff reports
said.
In a Kaiser
Health News
article from
early May, Marwa
Zaatari — a
member of the
Epidemic Task
Force of ASHRAE,
the American
Society of
Heating,
Refrigerating
and
Air-Conditioning
Engineers —
raised doubt
about the
efficacy of the
devices.
“It’s a high
cost for
nothing,”
Zaatari said in
the article.
Global Plasma
Solutions has
sued her and
another
air-quality
consultant for
criticizing
their devices,
according to
Kaiser Health
News.
The company
noted its
products met
ASHRAE’s “zero
ozone”
certification
standards,
something
Triplett had
noted in past
presentations,
as well.
“This is some
really amazing
technology
that’s been
developed,”
Triplett said
during the board
meeting in
November when
introducing the
idea to buy the
devices to the
board.
“I think it
really could
give a lot of
peace of mind to
our staff, our
students, and
our families
with
relationship to
really improving
air quality,”
Triplett said.
“I will say, the
cost is not
insignificant,”
Triplett said,
“but we really
feel like this
is really money
well spent
because it’s
about the safety
and the health
of our students
and staff.”
Open Letter to
Address the Use
of Electronic
Air Cleaning
Equipment in
Buildings
Dr
Marwa Zaatari,
Dr. Marcel
Harmon
Studies (ref:
1,2,3,4,5) indicate
a much lower
degree of
effectiveness in
real-world
conditions than
typically
claimed by
manufacturers.
Studies (ref:1,3,4,5,6,7,8) also
indicate that
chemical
compounds at
harmful
concentrations
can be produced
in real-world
settings,
directly as a
part of the
process or as
byproducts
created from the
chemical
reactions
occurring within
the space. In
the absence of
regulation and
with presently
very little
peer-reviewed
research,
significant
questions remain
regarding
effectiveness
and the
potential
impacts on human
health.
Following the
precautionary
principle, we
must advocate
for schools not
to use
electronic air
cleaning
devices. The
proven measures
that should be
taken to address
airborne
transmission
risk include
properly sized
and maintained
ventilation
(mechanical and
natural),
mechanical
filtration
(including
portable HEPA
filter units),
and germicidal
ultraviolet
light systems.
Such measures
are practical
and often can be
easily
implemented;
many are not
costly,
particularly
when assessed on
a per student
basis. Even
without the
relief aid
dollars many are
inexpensive
enough to be
funded with
capital outlay
dollars instead
of passing a
bond.
Many districts,
constrained by
varying degrees
of limited
budgets,
deferred
maintenance, and
pressure to get
kids back in
school, have
already
implemented
electronic air
cleaning
devices, relying
on incomplete
data and
exaggerated
claims to make a
well-intended,
but incorrect
decision.
Despite the
resources
invested, we
recommend that
these districts
strongly
consider turning
off or disabling
these electronic
air cleaners to
prevent
unintended harm
to building
occupants. These
districts should
also recognize
that the
intended COVID
safety benefits
have not been
provided,
putting
students,
teachers, staff,
and their
communities at
greater risk,
and consider
what
applications of
the above proven
measures, along
with other
strategies, can
be implemented
to truly
mitigate risk.
Overview of
Electronic Air
Cleaning
Equipment
Impact on
health: Relevant
to health
impacts, peer
reviewed studies
indicate the
potential of
electronic air
cleaners to
produce ozone,
VOCs (including
aldehydes), and
ultrafine
particles (ref:1,3,4,5,6).
Ozone,
classified as a
lung irritant (ref:
10,11) is
produced by some
electronic air
cleaning
technology at
levels harmful
to human health (ref:
5,6),
potentially
contributing to
respiratory
disease, cancer,
and auto-immune
disease (ref:12,13).
Some of these
technologies do
comply with
CARB/FDA/UL 867
(ozone emissions
resulting in
concentrations
of less than 50
ppb in a test
chamber).
However, experts
believe any
level of
exposure is
potentially
harmful (ref:14) and
ASHRAE Standard
62.1 2019 added
requirements
that ozone
levels resulting
from an air
cleaner should
not exceed 5
ppb (ref:15).
Some air
cleaners also
comply with UL
2998 (5 ppb).
However, we know
of no
third-party
research, white
papers, or case
studies
verifying ozone
emissions do not
start or do not
increase in a
variety of
installation
conditions over
time, either as
a result of
equipment aging,
incorrect usage,
or changing
environmental
chemistry
conditions. Some
manufacturers
have anecdotally
indicated such
data has been
collected to
verify this.
Others have
indicated the
nature of the
technology makes
such increases
in ozone
production over
time highly
unlikely if not
impossible.
However, we have
yet to see data
supporting these
statements. In
the previously
referenced
CDC/FEMA study (ref:
5), it was
found that a
certain bipolar
ionization
device increased
the level of
ozone to more
than 1,000 ppb
even though the
device has
published test
data showing
zero ozone
production and
has obtained
UL867
certification.
As with ozone,
exposure to the
oxygen free
radicals, or
reactive oxygen
species (ROS),
produced
deliberately by
electronic air
cleaning
technology’s
applications or
unintentionally
as a result of
the chemistry
occurring within
the space, can
potentially
contribute to
respiratory
disease, cancer,
and auto-immune
disease (ref:12,13,16).
In addition,
targeted
contaminants
(including many
VOCs) are
generally not
completely
converted into
benign CO2 and
H2O and instead
actually
transformed into
other harmful
byproducts (ref:1,6,17,18,19).
Whether or not
this occurs
depends on the
other chemicals
present within
the space.
Researchers
recognize that
we still need to
improve our
overall
understanding of
the impact that
indoor air
chemistry has on
human health and
wellness (ref:
16).
Except for
comments along
the lines of
occupants being
exposed to “less
hazardous
reactants and
byproducts” (ref:20) manufacturers
provide little
information on
a) the amount of
potential
exposure to
either free
radicals or
potential
byproducts in
real world
conditions, b)
what risk such
exposure may
present given
the research
cited above, or
c) how that risk
might vary by
demographic
factors (age,
pre-existing
conditions,
etc.). The lack
of reported
potentially
harmful
byproducts is
also likely due
in part to
manufacturer
funded lab tests
not commonly
making use of
the instruments
needed to assess
their potential
formation, which
speaks in part
to the need for
more
standardization
of testing
protocols (ref:
1,6,9).
The research
conducted on the
human health
impacts of
direct exposure
to the ions
produced by some
electronic air
cleaning
technology, like
BPI, is
contradictory
and incomplete.
One literature
review from
2018 (ref:21) found
studies with
results
indicating
positive or no
health impacts
as a result of
exposure to
negative air
ions. However,
the authors of
the review
indicated these
results needed
further
verification.
Nor was it clear
how many, if
any, of these
studies
considered a)
long-term and/or
repeated
exposure and b)
variation in
impact by age
group and those
with
pre-existing
conditions.
Manufacturers
have also stated
that by
“cleaning the
air” this
technology
allows for a
reduction in
energy
consumption by
reducing minimum
required
ventilation
rates as much as
70% or down to 5
cfm per person.
They claim to
comply with
ASHRAE 62.1’s
indoor air
quality
procedure
(IAQP) (ref:15) which
allows for
additional means
of contaminant
removal or
dilution other
than that
provided by the
introduction of
outside air.
However, as has
been discussed
above, the
effectiveness of
electronic air
cleaning
technology in
real-world
conditions is
questionable at
best, meaning
contaminant
concentration
levels are
likely not, in
fact, reduced.
Reducing outside
air below the
levels dictated
by ASHRAE 62.1’s
prescriptive
design
procedures will
eliminate one of
the most
effective
protection
layers available
to schools for
diluting the
SARS-CoV-2 virus
(and other
contaminants).
All of this is
why the CDC
encourages (ref:22) consumers
“… to exercise
caution and to
do their
homework” before
purchasing BPI
technology (with
ASHRAE
referencing this
statement in
lieu of taking a
formal
position). It’s
also why the
U.K.’s
Scientific
Advisory Group
for Emergencies
states (ref:9) that
electronic air
cleaning
technology has a
“… limited
evidence base
that
demonstrates
effectiveness
against
SARS-CoV-2
and/or may
generate
undesirable
secondary
chemical
products that
could lead to
health effects
such as
respiratory or
skin
irritation.”
They do not
recommend using
it unless “…
their safety and
efficacy can be
unequivocally
and
scientifically
demonstrated by
relevant test
data.” The
Spanish Ministry
of Science
states in a
recent report (ref:23) that
“Public funds
should not be
used in the
short term for
the purchase of
air cleaners
based on
plasmas,
oxidation,
photocatalysis,
or ions, unless
their safety can
be first
confirmed [by
investigating]
the potential
formation of
toxic chemical
products.”
We agree with
this
recommendation.
None of the $176
billion approved
over the last
several months
by the Federal
government for
K-12 COVID
relief aid
should be spent
on this unproven
technology.
Particularly
when other
proven and safe
technologies and
strategies are
available to
mitigate the
risk from
SARS-CoV-2 and
other pathogens
while also
improving the
learning
environment and
health and
wellness
overall. Given
the evidence for
the
ineffectiveness
of electronic
air cleaning
equipment in
addressing the
risk of
infection from
SARS-CoV-2 in
real-world
conditions, its
use creates a
false sense of
security. We ask
that school
district
facility
managers and
administration
leadership, as
well as the
relevant
national and
international
bodies and
Architecture,
Engineering and
Construction
(AEC) industry
consultants,
recognize the
unproven nature
of electronic
air cleaning
equipment and
avoid wasting
valuable
emergency COVID
relief aid
dollars
installing it
within school
facilities.
Notes
The following
scientists and
consultants
contributed to
formulating this
commentary.
Dr. Marwa
Zaatari |
Partner | DZINE
Partners |
marwa.zaatari@gmail.com
Dr. Marcel
Harmon |
Associate
Principal and
Research &
Development Lead
| BranchPattern
|marcel.h@branchpattern.com
The following
scientists and
consultants
reviewed and
support this
document.
Dr. Linsey Marr |
Professor |
Department of
Civil and
Environmental
Engineering |
University of
Virginia Tech
Dr. Jose Luis
Jimenez |
Professor of
Chemistry &
Biochemistry |
University of
Colorado
Dr. William
Bahnfleth |
Professor |
Department of
Architectural
Engineering |
Penn State,
Professional
engineer
Dr. Shelly
Miller |
Professor |
Department of
Mechanical
Engineering |
University of
Colorado Boulder
Dr. Jeff Siegel |
Professor |
Department of
Civil and
Mineral
Engineering |
University of
Toronto
Mr. Hoy Bohanon |
Professional
mechanical
engineer | Owner
Hoy Bohanon
Engineering
Dr. Elliott
Gall |
Assistant
professor |
Thermal & Fluid
Science Group |
Portland State
University
Dr. Kim Prather |
Professor
|Climate,
Atmospheric
Science &
Physical
Oceanography |
University of
California San
Diego
Dr. Delphine
Farmer |
Associate
Professor |
Department of
Chemistry |
Colorado State
University
Dr. Brent
Stephens |
Professor |
Department of
Architectural
Engineering |
Illinois
institute of
Technology
Dr. Richard
Corsi |
Professor |
Maseeh College
of Engineering
and Computer
Science |
Portland State
University
Dr. Wayne
Thomann |
Assistant
Professor
|Family Medicine
and Community
Health | Duke
university
Disclaimer.
The views and
opinions
expressed in
this article are
those of the
authors and do
not necessarily
reflect the
official policy
or position of
any agency,
institution, or
firm.
Potential
conflict of
interest.
The authors: No
reported
conflicts of
interest
References
1. Zeng Y,
Manwatkar P,
Laguerre A, et
al. Evaluating a
commercially
available
in-duct bipolar
ionization
device for
pollutant
removal and
potential
byproduct
formation. Build
Environ 2021;
195: 107750.
2. Trane
Technologies. A
Taxonomy of
Air-Cleaning
Technologies
Featuring
Bipolar
Ionization,
https://www.jp.trane.com/content/dam/Trane/Commercial/global/about-us/wellsphere/Technology
Whitepaper —
Bipolar
Ionization.pdf
(2021, accessed
31 March 2021).
3. Sleiman M,
Fisk WJ. Evaluation
of Pollutant
Emissions from
Portable Air
Cleaners. Final
Report: Contract
№10–320.
Berkeley, CA,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//research/apr/past/10-320.pdf
(2014, accessed
5 April 2021).
4. Crawford T,
Fritz P, Wainman
T. Changes in
IAQ Caused By
Corona Discharge
Air Cleaner. ASHRAE
J 2018;
64–67.
5. Gressel MG,
Wilder LC. Evaluation
of mitigation
strategies for
reducing
formaldehyde
concentrations
in unoccupied
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency-owned
travel trailers.
Atlanta, GA,
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/26758
(2009).
6. U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency (EPA). Residential
Air Cleaners: A
Technical
Summary, 3rd
Edition,
Portable Air
Cleaners,
Furnace and HVAC
Filters,
www.epa.gov/iaq
(2018, accessed
6 April 2021).
7. Liu W, Huang
J, Lin Y, et al.
Negative ions
offset
cardiorespiratory
benefits of
PM2.5 reduction
from residential
use of negative
ion air
purifiers. Indoor
Air 2021;
31: 220–228.
8. Dong W, Liu
S, Chu M, et al.
Different
cardiorespiratory
effects of
indoor air
pollution
intervention
with ionization
air purifier:
Findings from a
randomized,
double-blind
crossover study
among school
children in
Beijing. Environ
Pollut 2019;
254: 113054.
9. EMG
(Environmental
and Modelling
Group). EMG:
Potential
application of
air cleaning
devices and
personal
decontamination
to manage
transmission of
COVID-19, 4
November 2020,
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emg-potential-application-of-air-cleaning-devices-and-personal-decontamination-to-manage-transmission-of-covid-19-4-november-2020
(2020, accessed
9 March 2021).
10. U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency (EPA).
Indoor Air
Pollution: An
Introduction for
Health
Professionals |
Indoor Air
Quality (IAQ) |
US EPA,
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/indoor-air-pollution-introduction-health-professionals
(accessed 31
March 2021).
11. U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency (EPA). Air
Quality Criteria
For Ozone and
Related
Photochemical
Oxidants (Final
Report, 2006).
Washington, DC,
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923
(2006, accessed
31 March 2021).
12. Phaniendra
A, Jestadi DB,
Periyasamy L.
Free Radicals:
Properties,
Sources,
Targets, and
Their
Implication in
Various
Diseases. Indian
J Clin Biochem 2015;
30: 11–26.
13. Vallyathan
V, Shi X. The
role of oxygen
free radicals in
occupational and
environmental
lung diseases. Environ
Health Perspect 1997;
105: 165–177.
14. Corsi RL. Assessment
of Maximum Ozone
Emissions in
Residential,
Office and
School Buildings.
Austin, TX,
https://corsiairquality.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/assessment-of-maximum-ozone-emissions-in-residential-office-and-school-buildings-.pdf
(2006, accessed
5 April 2021).
15. ASHRAE. ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard
62.1–2019 —
Ventilation for
Acceptable
Indoor Air
Quality.
Atlanta, GA,
https://ashrae.iwrapper.com/ASHRAE_PREVIEW_ONLY_STANDARDS/STD_62.1_2019
(accessed 5
April 2021).
16. Wells JR,
Schoemaecker C,
Carslaw N, et
al. Reactive
indoor air
chemistry and
health — A
workshop
summary. In: International
Journal of
Hygiene and
Environmental
Health.
Elsevier GmbH,
2017, pp.
1222–1229.
17. Price DJ,
Day DA, Pagonis
D, et al.
Budgets of
Organic Carbon
Composition and
Oxidation in
Indoor Air. Environ
Sci Technol.
Epub ahead of
print 2019. DOI:
10.1021/acs.est.9b04689.
18.
Isaacman-VanWertz
G, Massoli P,
O’Brien R, et
al. Chemical
evolution of
atmospheric
organic carbon
over multiple
generations of
oxidation. Nat
Chem 2018;
10: 462–468.
19. Peng Z,
Jimenez JL.
Radical
chemistry in
oxidation flow
reactors for
atmospheric
chemistry
research. Chem
Soc Rev 2020;
49: 2570–2616.
20. Daniels SL. Applications
of Air
Ionization for
Control of VOCs
and PM X, Paper
#918,
www.globalplasmasolutions.com
(2019, accessed
31 March 2021).
21. Jiang S-Y,
Ma A,
Ramachandran S.
Negative Air
Ions and Their
Effects on Human
Health and Air
Quality
Improvement. International
Journal of
Molecular
Sciences ;
19. Epub ahead
of print 2018.
DOI:
10.3390/ijms19102966.
22. CDC via
ASHRAE. CDC
Position on
Bipolar
Ionization,
https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/filtration-disinfection#cdcposition
(2020, accessed
31 March 2021).
23. Alcamí A,
del Val M,
Hernán M, et
al. Scientific
report on the
modes of
transmission of
COVID-19,
https://www.ciencia.gob.es/portal/site/MICINN/menuitem.edc7f2029a2be27d7010721001432ea0/?vgnextoid=673bb7e72dba5710VgnVCM1000001d04140aRCRD
(2020, accessed
8 April 2021).
|