Update: some air purifiers create -- cough, cough -- smog

It's been a year since we first heard that ionic air purifiers can actually make air quality worse, and that finding has now been confirmed by a peer-reviewed, government-funded study. According to the study, which appears in the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, using an ionic ozonolysis air purifier in a sealed room can lead to ozone levels as high as 350 parts per billion, a level equivalent to a Los Angeles Stage 2 Smog Alert. The EPA has already come out against ozone-producing air purifiers, saying that they have "little potential to remove indoor air contaminants."

Update: As pointed out below in comments, the study quoted above apparently referred to both ionic air purifiers and ozone generators. However, many media outlets, including LiveScience (our source for this post), conflated the two. According to lead researcher Sergey Nizkorodov, a chemistry professor the University of California, Irvine, "ionic air purifiers do emit ozone. [But] none of the ionic air purifiers produce enough ozone when they are used properly to exceed smog alerts." LiveScience has since added a correction, which can be viewed here.

[AR @ May 10th 2006 12:46PM]

more like, Ironic Air Purifier.
thank you, good night.

[ryan @ May 10th 2006 12:50PM]

those air purifiers now have a catalyst to break up o3 into o2. Does the report mention that? Also every electronic device in your home puts our o3, the worst ones are your big TV, Stero, XBox 360. Older breezes may be bad but it is already around us.

[Jellodyne @ May 10th 2006 12:55PM]

I love those tv ads where they tout that the ozone filter converts smog and ozone into oxygen, but neglect to mention that the other side of the 'air purifier' is busy converting oxygen into smog and ozone.

[Chris @ May 10th 2006 1:02PM]

Funny how everyone just reads these government studies and just believes everything word for word. Has anyone here actually studied ozone to find that in fact ozone is actually good for your health?

[College Student @ May 10th 2006 1:17PM]

I knew those TV commericals were too good to be true..ionizing dirt particles.....yeah right

[NeoteriX @ May 10th 2006 1:26PM]

Haha, sucks for the Sharper Image. I used to work there, and while everything in the store is junk, the Ionic Breeze air purifiers were definitely the biggest sellers. So much for that.

[Stinky @ May 10th 2006 1:33PM]

I know this sounds gross, but I must express how well these purifyers work. All of you with kids can attest to how bad the "diaper bin" smells. While we try to take out the garbage once a day, sometimes if piles up. Last year we purchased one of the IBs and placed it beside the diaper bin. They killed the smell. We can now go 4-5 days before taking out the garbage and never know the difference.

I like products that make my life easier (less trips to the garbage) even if they *may* make my life shorter.

[James R. McDonald @ May 10th 2006 1:41PM]

Consumer Reports has been able to show that ionic breeze type air filters are ineffective. Now we learn they may be dangerous. Yes, ozone has been studied, and yes, it is bad for you. It is especially bad for people with respiratory conditions such as asthma or emphysema. Guess who are the biggest purchasers of these devices? Right, those who are most desperate for help. So, add to the irony of the situation the cynicism of the people marketing the devices.

[greatslack @ May 10th 2006 1:46PM]

hmm, so why don't we get a bunch of these and go repair our ozone layer?

[Hannah @ May 10th 2006 1:56PM]

To 5 and 8 respectively:

5: Ozone is not good for your health. I'm not sure of the exact chemistry that goes on with O3, but your lungs can't break it down the way it can O2 and it's bad for your lungs.

8: One of the annoying things about ozone is that it's good in the upper atmosphere, where it belongs, but not so down near the ground. It is, as I said, harmful to humans and animals. Another funny thing about ozone is that when it's created it tends to hang around, rather than floating upward. So generating ozone close to ground level won't solve any problems with the ozone layer, I'm afraid.

[Jeff @ May 10th 2006 2:07PM]

"Has anyone here actually studied ozone to find that in fact ozone is actually good for your health?"

Well then, be my guest and lock yourself in a 100% ozone environment so that we can all be educated. We'll all be interested to see what happens.

There's a reason why L.A. is rife with "ozone alerts" in summer... it ain't good for you. What it's good for is insulation of the Earth's atmosphere, in the same way fiberglass is good for insulation of your home. That doesn't mean you should be going around eating and breathing fiberglass.

[aboriginal @ May 10th 2006 2:47PM]

Read into that document and it doesn't differentiate Ozone Generators (high O3 output in the parts per billion) from electrostatic air purifiers (well below the California state PPB requirements). One makes it for specific reasons and the other makes it as a bi-product of its operation as it traps particulate. O3 has a very short half life and it breaks donwn as it encounters carpet, furniture and so on.

[David Grant @ May 10th 2006 2:47PM]

Ozone is one of a group of molecules called reactive oxygen species - ROS. They're pretty bad news for essentially any organic molecule as they rapidly react with, and often destroy, the molecule. FWIW, plants produce ROS as part of their response to invading pathogens. This is designed to kill the pathogen as well as the cell it has infected.

[DJEJ @ May 10th 2006 3:00PM]

To #5:
International Chemical Safety Card for Ozone

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/cis/products/icsc/dtasht/_icsc00/icsc0068.htm

[stewart @ May 10th 2006 3:10PM]

If anybody has really try this units - you know this article is total Bull. You will not believe the black stuff that gets wipe off these things after a week.

My guess is its some lobbist for a competitor product against these units that is trying to dirt of the scene. ( no pun intended ).

[CWY @ May 10th 2006 3:26PM]

Consumer Reports has said for years that the Ionic Breeze was a terrible air-purifier and dangerous as well due to high ozone levels.

[Moogle @ May 10th 2006 3:33PM]

Bleh. So much misunderstanding.

-------Claims:
Reduces particulate matter in air: True, stuff sticks to the energized blades

Reduces pollution: False, it creates more ozone PPM than it removes in dirt PPM. Ozone is dangerous in certain quantities, and is thus a 'pollutant'.

Improves air quality: Depends on the environment and your sensitivity to ozone. Some people suffer physical pain around these devices, others have a phenomenally easier time breathing. Ozone oxidizes just about everything so it will neutralize odor and allergens, moreso than the ammount of gunk that sticks to the blades. But it also tears up your throat and lungs, and in high concentrations your body won't repair it as fast as it's damaged.

If you have one in every room of your house, you might have problems. If you have 2 in your bedroom that are on every night and you keep your door closed, you'll probably wake up with a sore throat. If you have one you turn on every once in a while, you'll probably have better health from reduced alergens. Jury's still out on cancer risks from my understanding, but it's a bit worrisome if you're at high risk.

(Also it's known to fade wallpaper and artwork)

Lastly, there's a huge difference between a little ionization around high end electronics, and a device that specifically maximizes ionization surface area in order to generate ozone intentionally (I'm guessing the ozone is more than half of the effectiveness of ionic breeze machines, even with the ozone scrubber)

[danj3ris @ May 10th 2006 3:36PM]

It is funny how the "Ionic Breeze Quadra" now comes with a "Bonus Ozone Purifier"! To convert Ozone into fresh clean air.

The marketing people are genius. "Lets tack on this ozone filter, to make them think the Ionic breeze does MORE now." Like its an upgrade. A friken BETTER ionic breeze.

Stupidity at its finest, a machine produces Ozone while cleaning air, while an add-on produces air while cleaning Ozone. I dont know about Ozone filtering technology, but how much do you want to bet it has to do with "Particles"? Particles that the ionic breeze cleans out of.... the ..... air..

Its like saying you remember getting amnesia when you were thrown into a brick wall.

[EJ @ May 10th 2006 3:47PM]

Who am I to question those studies, it sounds like a serious health threat.

Anyhow, I noticed that those things really combat stinky house smells, like cooking, dogs, etc. They defintely picked up some type of black particulates when operated in a city apartment.

In fact I had to clean this heavy black soot off of the plates weekly. I wonder what that stuff was? Maybe it was tire rubber particulates? I can tell you, my paper filters never accumulate black soot the same way.

I'd like to know what the effectiveness of the new water based filtering system manufactured by a German company.

That's the problem with CR, they are never very progressive in testing new technologies. They only studied these things about 3 years after everyone had already bought them.

We need a better consumers union.

[Dean @ May 10th 2006 3:48PM]

I used to work for the Sharper Image and what the previous poster said was true. They make their money on these machines, everything else is essentially to get people into the store for Ionic Breezes.
There is disturbingly little information about the ozone output of those machines available to sellers. People always asked about the consumer reports articles and such, but we never had a good reply, even with the memo after memo that was sent out informing people about the article.

[Chris @ May 10th 2006 3:59PM]

Ozone is natures way of cleaning up garbage. So when you here a smog alert and elevated ozone levels, what there not telling you is the ozone is there cleaning the junk coming out of cars.

Yes, breathing high levels of ozone makes you caugh and irritates your lungs, but where not taking about high levels here, at the levels this machine put out, it is actually benefitial to your health.

If anyone is actually interested in do some research on the web, there are hundreds of uses for ozone medically. They use it in russia, cuba, and germany all the time.

E.g. Red hot chilli peppers lead singer actually injects ozone into his arm, without that treatment he'd probably be dead.

[Devon @ Feb 17th 2008 4:25AM]

"Ozone is natures way of cleaning up garbage. So when you here a smog alert and elevated ozone levels, what there not telling you is the ozone is there cleaning the junk coming out of cars."

Actually, I think the ozone is the result of the "junk" being broken down by UV and the like. So more of a result of smog break down, not a cause.
If this is not the case, then what is emitting the ozone to break down the smog in the first place??

"Yes, breathing high levels of ozone makes you caugh and irritates your lungs, but where not taking about high levels here, at the levels this machine put out, it is actually benefitial to your health."

Not sure what you mean by "high levels"... and wouldn't what these machines put out depend on how many you had, how often they were running, and how air-tight your home was?
Also, I have yet to see an article that says the INHALATION of ozone has any benefits.

"If anyone is actually interested in do some research on the web, there are hundreds of uses for ozone medically. They use it in russia, cuba, and germany all the time."

... and all the ones I have read so far talk about blood work, skin absorption, etc. (NOT inhalation).

"E.g. Red hot chilli peppers lead singer actually injects ozone into his arm, without that treatment he'd probably be dead."

Key word: INJECTS (ie. not BREATHS)

[Matt E. @ May 10th 2006 4:00PM]

There goes my Mother's Day Gift idea. :-(

[GaryT @ May 10th 2006 4:13PM]

Moogle has very good points. And you're not supposed to use it in a closed room anyway. Like most people in San Diego, I live within a mile from several major highways. I use the IB to remove the particulates that come in through my open windows. (Of course it helps that I'm in a climate where I can open my windows nearly all year.) If I don't want to leave my windows open during the day, I'll crack them open overnight when there is less road traffic and thus cleaner air.

[oshean @ May 10th 2006 4:37PM]

I find that the filtered air feels softer and has a unique sweet smell to it.... must be the ozone! When using my fan driven ionizer at night I never once woke up with a stuffed up head.

Poo-shaw! Every chemical compound is dangerous in excess.

Forget Sharper Image you can find these machines pricesd less elsewhere.

[DA @ May 10th 2006 5:40PM]

10: Well then, be my guest and lock yourself in a 100% ozone environment so that we can all be educated. We'll all be interested to see what happens.

Lock yourself in a 100% oxygen environment, and we'll see how great an example that is.

[Dr. Seuss @ May 10th 2006 6:04PM]

Asj a chemist about ozone. Ozone breaks down organic material. Like the stuff lungs and other tissue are made of. Ouch!!!

[Brian Paul Ehni @ May 10th 2006 6:12PM]

hey, 19, I'd really like to see someone inject a GAS into their arm. Can you say "embolism"? How about "dead lead singer"?

[Chris @ May 10th 2006 6:18PM]

Read his biography, first couple of pages, they use a device to remove blood from his body, ozonate it, and put it back in. It doesn't cause an embolism. It sounds strange but people do it and it works.

[Carl Lumma @ May 10th 2006 7:18PM]

#11
"Read into that document and it doesn't differentiate Ozone Generators (high O3 output in the parts per billion) from electrostatic air purifiers ... "

Typical LiveScience ... one of the most horrendously bad sources of science news on the web.

#15
Consumer Reports' #1 recommended purifier is an ionizer.

#16
"it creates more ozone PPM than it removes in dirt PPM"

Do you have a citation on this?

#18
Of their latest model, admittedly a fan-based unit (the fanless "ionic breeze" design is a bad idea, I think), the SI website says,
"... does generate ozone but it is converted to oxygen by a large 1,600-square-inch OzoneGuard grid. Hybrid GP has far less ozone accumulation (10 ppb, parts per billion) than the strictest U.S. safety standards (50 ppb) for air cleaners and medical devices; far less than any ESP air cleaner on the market ... ozone accumulation that is 33percent less than Consumer Report's favored Frederich C-90A ESP air cleaner ..."

-Carl

[zip22 @ May 10th 2006 7:48PM]

carl, the #1 is ionic, but the ionic breeze series scored the worst

the follow up article where they tested with the ozone guard, they still found the ionic breeze series to be a poor performer.

"The bottom line. Save your money. Although OzoneGuard reduced emissions of ozone to just under the UL limit, the Ionic Breeze still adds this pollutant to indoor air. Moreover, air cleaners in general are a dubious investment from a health standpoint, and the Ionic Breeze with OzoneGuard was poor at removing smoke, dust, and pollen from the air, as were earlier Sharper Image cleaners. The best-performing cleaner tested for our October report removed particles roughly 20 times faster."

[Phoneboy @ May 10th 2006 11:49PM]

This is a controversial issue with strong opinions on both sides. Interestingly enough, I think both sides are right!

As an owner of an Ionic Breeze, I have experienced both the positive and negative effects of operating this device.

Pros:
It does remove particulates.
It does eliminate odors very effectively. (My favoirte benefit.)
I got the "ozone guard" catalyst later, and it does noticeably reduce the ozone emissions.

Cons:
Ozone is bad for you. (Though its effect on the air around you can be positive, the ozone itself is bad for you.)
When I tried operating it in the same room (pre-ozone guard) in which I sleep, it gave me and my wife a sore/dry throat. It seems to reduce the relative humidity in a room as well. (That's based on personal experience, not an understanding of how it would.)

I still like the unit. I don't use it continually in an enclosed space, but it is useful for some applications: eliminating odors (like the eliminating the smell of rotting mice at our log cabin), helping to reduce allergins, etc.

I paid SI about $10 to have them send me an ozone guard. I like it, but I think they should send them to all customers for free to stave off a class action law suit. I also wonder why the size of the guard only allows it to treat less than half of the air coming out of the device. Wierd.

[EcoQuest @ May 11th 2006 12:27AM]

No air purifier in the world produces smog.

Some produce ozone and ozone is a component of smog, just as salt is not sea water, it is a component of sea water.

That article is completely misleading

[NeoteriX @ May 11th 2006 1:15AM]

Regardless of whether ozone is good/bad for you, whether the ionizer units here produce enough to be good/bad for you, and all the other health implications--one thing is absolutely clear:

These ionizer units (distinct from the very expensive ones that Consumer Reports rates highly) are just not as effective as a HEPA certified filter. Period. They have other upsides like making the air smell rain-y fresh and silent operation, but they simply do not have the efficiency that a HEPA filter provides (99.97% of .3 micrometre particles)

[Ching @ May 11th 2006 2:15AM]

A search on www does show lots of info on ozone including medical uses. From those articles I learn that whether ozone is good or bad depends on the level of concentration you're exposed to. All consumer products emitting higher level of ozone should have a regulator built in to make sure it is within healthy level.

[Brian Paul Ehni @ May 11th 2006 9:44AM]

The only MEDICAL hits on "ozonated blood" showed that in tests, it has had not observable impact on either retinitis pigmentosa or tumor oxygenation

I do see where the FDA isn't keen on ozonated blood in AIDS research, and at least one lawsuit against a quack, er, "doctor" using it to treat a child with "pervasive developmental disorder" whatever that is.

Your lead singer should also investigate crystals; I hear they're pretty good, too.

[Brian Paul Ehni @ May 11th 2006 9:46AM]

The vast majority of those sites touting it for medical uses are people trying to get you to use it, not OBJECTIVE information as to its efficacy!

[Carl Lumma @ May 11th 2006 11:23AM]

#31
Yes I know they say the ionic breezes are poor performers, but they didn't test the new Hybrid GP, which is a completely different design.

#33
That's right. LiveScience strikes again.

#34
There's no such thing as 'HEPA certification'. HEPA-type filters are just too loud IMO.

[Tim @ May 11th 2006 7:19PM]

Dude... I hope my Oreck doesn't kill me. I mean, they keep on ranking on Sharper Image's but CR never talks about the Oreck--or did they?

[tekdemon @ May 12th 2006 3:10AM]

lol every time I point out that these things not only do not remove nearly as much stuff as either a HEPA or a good electrostatic filter would, I somehow find myself bombarded by people claiming that Consumer Reports has some insane vendetta against Sharper Image.

So it's nice to see that pretty much anyone with any authority also thinks Sharper Image is being a bunch of jerks marketing these ozone generators that remove about as much dirt as sweeping your floor probably would.

Seriously if you want something that uses electric plates to remove dirt, then at least buy something effective.

[Thomas Crymes @ May 12th 2006 3:48PM]

The article has printed a correction:

"Correction: This article in its original form was inaccurate. The study involved two types of air purifiers, those commonly called ionic and those that employ a process called ozonolysis. Only those using ozonolysis were found to contribute to ozone levels that can in some cases exceed air quality standards. ?Ionic air purifiers do emit ozone,? said lead researcher Sergey Nizkorodov, a chemistry professor the University of California, Irvine. But he added that ?none of the ionic air purifiers produce enough ozone when they are used properly to exceed smog alerts.? The confusion was generated in part by a UC Irvine press release that did not clearly distinguish between these two types of machines. LiveScience regrets the error and any confusion it may have caused. The article has been revised."

[Derrick @ May 12th 2006 6:44PM]

Thank you #41 for pointing out this error. Ionic Breezes are NOT ozone generators. Here is the article on WebMD that #41 references.

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/122/114532.htm

[Mike @ May 19th 2006 2:52PM]

Ozone is not smog. Ozone is three oxygen molecules, a clear gas. Smog comes from cars and factories. This article is misleading. This websites provides more information.

[Devon @ Feb 17th 2008 4:25AM]

This post and all the "Mike" posts after it are direct quotes from a website that sells air purifiers and ozone generators... so of course they are pro-ozone. They mostly focus on ozone for purifing water and surfaces though, and in this case we are talking about breathing it.

The article he is quoting does not appear to cite any actual studies or external documents.

While I certainly agree that smog is bad and needs to be controlled, that does not in any way make low level ozone good.
It is still bad for plant and animal life, including people, since it is highly reactive with organic molecules (often in a bad way). It causes irritation and damage to the respiratory system, and any ozone related medical treatments I have read about involve direct blood work, skin absorption, etc. (ie. NOT inhalation).

[Mike @ May 19th 2006 2:56PM]

Forgot to give the link:

http://www.ioniczone.com/air_purifiers_create_ozone_is_not_smog.html

Basically, the smog problem is caused by older big rigs and buses that are not required by law to have emissions controls. They dump bydrocarbons, VOC's, and nitrous ozides into the air, that's what constitutes smog. That smog splits oxygen molecules in with heat. The extra oxygen molecule attaches to oxygen (O2) to make oxone (O3) Why is ozone vilifed? Why do they call high pollution days "ozone alerts"? More in my next post.

[Mike @ May 19th 2006 3:05PM]

Simple. To draw attention away from the true causes of smog and avoid having to fix the problem. I am political active and have a solution to the smog problem, but people dismiss my idea as impractical. My solution, to require all vehicles utilize smog controls. The problem I?m told is that 2 out of 3 big rigs and buses (including school buses) have engines too old to be fit with emissions controls. True. However, if the law required such equipment, don?t you think entrepreneurs and engineers would rush to invent emission control devices for the older engines? Of course! We can put a man on the moon, we can engineer emissions controls for older engines. Industry has a lot of PAC money and lobbyists in Washington that fight against this idea and pump millions into groups such as the $7.5 million they gave the UC Irvine people to put out this anti ozone study. In my next post, I?ll give you a real smog problem that effects millions of children every day, but don?t and they won?t. make that issue public because again, they don?t want to fix the problem.

[Mike @ May 19th 2006 3:13PM]

Childhood asthma is caused by smog, research suggests. Do you know that school buses poison children every day with smog from faulty tail pipe designs? (by the way, not ozone...just smog. Ozone is created with chain reactions in the atmosphere that requires heat to split oxygen.)

Here is what the Natural Resource Defense Council said on this subject:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/qbus.asp

" How much diesel exhaust gets into school buses?

To help answer this question, researchers from NRDC, the Coalition for Clean Air and the University of California at Berkeley measured air quality inside typical school buses as they traveled along real elementary-school bus routes in the Los Angeles area. They took continuous measurements inside the buses, and compared these to air quality both just outside the buses and in passenger cars traveling ahead of the buses tested. They took readings while idling with the motor running, while traveling up and down hills or driving slowly, and while making frequent stops. And most of the buses tested did not emit a significant amount of visible black smoke. In other words, the tests re-created real-life conditions.

The results were alarming. Our study found that levels of diesel exhaust inside a school bus can be four times higher than those found in passenger cars driving just ahead of the bus. And the diesel levels inside the buses were more than eight times the average diesel-exhaust content of California air."

Why are the real issues related to smog not being addressed by the people entrusted with government money (our tax dollars) to study air pollution? Can it be that the financial cost of dealing with school buses or older big rigs is so great the powers that be would rather just spend their money on promoting anti-ozone studies? Sure, blame ozone for the smog problem rather than face the real issues, is that the ticket here? Is the medical use of ozone also playing a factor in this vilification process? More on that subject in my next post.

[Mike @ May 19th 2006 3:36PM]

Ozone generators have a place, they are needed for smoke and odor remediation projects as well as very smoky environments. (casinos, bars, etc) Ozone is also needed by the food industry to keep food from spoiling. Furthermore, ozone is used by most municipal water districts to purify the water. Ozone has been used for over 100 years to treat illness. http://www.oxyfiles.org/oxyfiles/oxy00032.html In Germany, over 6.5 million doses of ozone have been administered and numerous ozone studies have been conducted showing the medicinal effects in the treatment and cure of everything from cancer to AIDS with medicinal ozone. http://www.oxyfiles.org/oxyfiles/oxy00032.html Here is what someone posted on BiologyNews.net recently regarding medical ozone, it hits the mark:
"In fact numerous effective cancer cures have been brought forth over the years, yet they never seem to get to market. This is especially true for ozone therapy, which was started in Germany in 1892, and came to the US in 1898. Since this therapy precedes the formation of the FDA, and happens to be one of the safest therapies on the market, under the law it has a grand fathered approval status. Yet the FDA routinely violates the law by jailing those who perform ozone therapy. Chemically ozone destroys cancer through multiple mechanisms. First of all malignant tumors lack the protective antioxidant enzymes which protect healthy cells. When ozone reacts with the lipid membrane of the cells a lipid peroxide is formed. Hydrogen peroxide is also formed by the reaction of ozone with water. These peroxides enter in to all cells. The antioxidant enzymes in the healthy cells break down the peroxides in to water and oxygen. Cancer cells on the other hand cannot break down these peroxides, thus these cells swell up and burst. Secondly the peroxides stimulate white blood cell activity. In fact NK (natural killer) cells use peroxide in the same manner to kill cancer cells. Ozone, being a strong oxidizer, kills cancer microbes, and carcinogens. As far as safety goes, a study done in Germany followed over 6.5 million doses of ozone given for therapy. There were slightly over 30 adverse reactions reported, mostly due to improper administration. Therefore, no therapy can match effectiveness and safety of ozone for cancer treatment."
It seems that countless lives could be saved with ozone therapy and other countless lives could be saved if emissions controls were required on all vehicles, regardless of age. We have to ask ourselves, if we can put a man on the moon, why then can we not engineer emissions controls for older engines? We could, very easily, but nobody is going to invent or manufacture emissions controls for older vehicles when in fact those older vehicles are not required by law to carry them!

Educating the masses is the first step in righting wrongs. When the people stand united on important issues, change is eminent. Sharing this information is the first step towards change.

[4me @ May 23rd 2006 10:10PM]

I bet all of the people who bought those things would love to get a refund. Actually, they probably don't know there is an issue with the product. :/

[Loran @ May 30th 2006 3:39PM]

Just to update everybody on the effects of ionization and the beneficial effects of Ozone + UV light (the same as the sun shining on the surface of the earth)....

KSU, EcoQuest Team to Advance Ionization for Food Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on: 05/05/2006



MANHATTAN, Kan. – Ozone was good, but adding ionization appears to be better when it comes to getting rid of foodborne pathogens. And what is ionization? Jim Marsden of a Food Safety Consortium research team at Kansas State University likens a new process using ionization to a “miniature sun” of ultraviolet energy interacting with oxygen and drawing particles out of the air, thus producing an antimicrobial effect.

“When Mount St. Helens went off, you had all these particles floating around,” Marsden said. “The reason they’re not still floating around is that ionization from the sun caused them to fall out of the air.”

Marsden’s KSU team worked with EcoQuest International, a Greeneville, Tenn.-based company, to determine the potential use of its ionization generator for food safety in processing plants. The researchers wanted to find out its effectiveness in reducing several pathogens including E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus auerus.

With EcoQuest phasing out its straight ozone generation system and shifting to ionization, it settled on a more advanced system that was originally developed by NASA to decontaminating spacecrafts during long missions, Marsden explained. The new technology for food safety goes beyond being merely ozone based. Its components consist of an antimicrobial part that uses oxidated gases such as peroxide and ozone and the ionized part.

“Here we’re talking about oxidated gases that basically fill the room with a somewhat aggressive antimicrobial system – extremely safe and breathable,” Marsden said. “The levels of ozone are very low in terms of OSHA and FDA standards.”

The researchers used stainless steel surfaces to test the system’s effectiveness in removing contaminating bacteria. The ionization system removed more microbial populations than ozone at shorter exposure times.

Ozone already has a good track record as a disinfectant. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2001 approved its use as a sanitizer for food contact surfaces and for direct application to food products. It is also used extensively for purification of bottled and municipal water.

“In the meat and poultry industry there are some applications for ozone where products are being treated with aqueous ozone prior to being sliced,” Marsden said. “They’re looking at ozone for decontamination of poultry chillers and for direct decontamination of birds as they go down the processing line.”

Marsden noted that the five years since government approval of the process is not a long time to determine how well applications are going to work, particularly in the meat and poultry industry.

The ionization system may be suited for related uses pending further research. KSU and EcoQuest personnel will examine its effectiveness in inactivating avian influenza environmentally. They may also investigate how the system could control Listeria in ready-to-eat meat processing environments.

The recent research results showed that ionization was effective in reducing levels of Staphylococcus auerus, leading researchers to consider the implications for hospitals and nursing homes.

“The ionization effect is that it eliminated odors,” Marsden explained. “For odors to be present they have to be aeromatic, so if you take it out in particle form and inactivate further with peroxide and ozone, it might have some application as well in hospitals, nursing homes, and the food industry.”

Source: University of Arkansas, Food Safety Consortium