Indoor air quality (IAQ) has never been closer to the forefront of the public mind. After all, the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing. The government’s scientific advisors have warned that, during the coming winter, daily hospitalizations could plausibly reach heights of 7,000 per day.
And, of course, we are all thoroughly aware at this point that COVID is an airborne virus and, as such, spreads very effectively indoors – a fact which many people will have reflected on as they returned to packed trains, classrooms, and offices in September.
IAQ technology
Awareness of airborne danger is a double-edged sword, as such companies will likewise be wary of devices
Naturally, then, many organizations will want to consider IAQ technology in the form of air cleaners and purifiers – but this awareness of airborne danger is a double-edged sword, as such companies will likewise be wary of devices that are more dangerous than they are helpful.
This is an entirely understandable concern, given that some air cleaners have, historically, been associated with the production of ozone, which can irritate the lungs of the very people who require clean air.
In this light, safety credentials and protocols matter. But this focus on validation begs the question: who should supply such credentials? The scientific community, or expert independent laboratories and manufacturers?
The limitations of scientific peer review
It might be tempting simply to place our faith in the hands of a scientific community whose peer review methods purport to determine the safety, or lack thereof, of a given air cleaning or IAQ device. After all, peer review is so closely tied to the scientific method, given its emphasis on ensuring that work is scrutinized by peers in the same field.
However, scientific peer review is – in many ways – flawed. As the Journal of the American Medical Association has found, “peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain,” meaning that there isn’t necessarily a great deal of evidence to suggest that peer review works – yet some in the scientific community claim that only through such methods can IAQ devices be considered safe.
Uncertainties and biases
We have little or no evidence that peers review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside"
The untested nature of peer review is especially troubling given that a different journal found the practice is undermined by “subjectivity and bias.”
The upshot of these biases and uncertainties is that while peer review might provide a certain amount of prestige or a sense of legitimacy, it can ultimately lend that kind of prestige to studies when it shouldn’t.
Some decades ago, this was demonstrated when two scientists took articles previously published in very prestigious journals and attempted to have them republished under assumed names, only to find several rejections on the grounds of “serious methodological flaws.”
Careful selection of authorities
Given these issues, it’s no wonder that former BMJ editor Richard Smith once said, “We have little or no evidence that peers review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside." Consequently, then, when it comes to IAQ devices, we need to think carefully about which authorities are best suited to judging safety and efficacy.
Of course, these limitations don’t mean that there shouldn’t be oversight for air purification devices: there should. But we do need to rethink the parties who have the authority to make judgments and confer safety credentials for these important machines.
Safety and efficacy
Consider, for example, current guidance offered by SAGE EMG, the government’s scientific advisors, on the subject of air cleaning technology that uses processes like ionization.
According to SAGE advice, such technology, “May generate undesirable secondary chemical products that could lead to health effects such as respiratory or skin irritation (medium confidence). These devices are therefore not recommended unless their safety and efficacy can be unequivocally and scientifically demonstrated by relevant test data.”
This guidance is inflected by the outdated generalization that all air purifiers of this sort emit ozone, as discussed above.
Limitations of the peer review process need to be taken with a substantial pinch of salt
Third-party validations
However, given the severe limitations of the peer review process, with its propensity for bias, subjectivity, and unproven validity, such pronouncements need to be taken with a substantial pinch of salt – and such guidance should instead be predicated on the validation processes of rigorous third-party safety firms.
For example, independent safety organization Underwriters Laboratories (UL) have developed environmental claim procedure UL 2998, using top-of-the-line testing processes to ensure that UL certified products emit less than the maximum ozone concentration limit of 0.005 ppm – and, given that many products pass this test, there is, therefore, a swathe of perfectly good air cleaning technology on the market which could be of vital use in the fight against COVID, but which government scientists have elected to tar with a rather unscientifically dismissive brush.
Reassessing validation and accreditation processes
We need to redress the imbalance caused by flawed scientific methodologies and reassess the validation and accreditation processes of those IAQ, compliance, and safety professionals who understand not only the devices under discussion but the stakes inherent in demonstrating their safety and efficacy in a world where IAQ matters more than ever.
