Most air purification devices have not been tested on humans. This is a problem

Portable air cleaners that aim to reduce the spread of internal infections of infections are rarely tested on the extent of people protection – and a few studies assess their potential harmful effects. This is it A detailed review result Among the approximately 700 studies that we participated in writing in the magazine of internal medicine records.

Many respiratory viruses, such as Covid-19 and influenza, can spread through the inner air. Technologies such as HEPA filters, ultraviolet lights and special ventilation designs-known as engineering infection controls-aim to clean internal air, prevent viruses and other pathogens from spreading pathogens.

Along with our colleagues in three academic institutions and government scientific agencies, we identified and analyzed each research study to assess the effectiveness of these published technologies from the twenties to 2023-672 of them in total.

These studies have evaluated three main ways: some of them were measured whether the interventions reduce inflammation in people; Others used animals such as Guinea pigs or mice; The rest took air samples to determine whether the devices reduce the number of small molecules or microbes in the air. I tested only about 8 % of effective studies on people, while more than 90 % tested devices in unmanned spaces.

We found a great contrast across different techniques. For example, 44 studies examined The air cleaning process is called oxidation of optical stimulationThat produce chemicals kill microbes, but only one of those that tested whether technology prevented infections in people. 35 other studies assessed plasma -based techniques to kill microbes, and none of them participated in humans. We also found 43 studies on filters that include nanoparticles designed to capture and kill microbes – unrestricted, nothing included a human test.

Why do it matter

The Covid-19 pandem Millions of lives Throughout the world, stressful health systems, closing schools and workplaces. Early studies showed that the Covid-19 virus was Displacement through the air. Logically It became a great axis As a way to keep people safe.

It can be to find effective ways to remove microbes from internal air, deep general health benefits and may help Reducing economic damage In future epidemics. Engineering infection controls can protect people from infection by working in the background of daily life, without any effort from people.

Companies that produce portable air detergents that include microbial killings Ambitious claims About the effectiveness of air cleansing and prevent infections. These products are already Marketing for consumers For use in day care centers, schools, healthcare clinics, and workplaces. We found that most of them were not tested properly for effectiveness. Without strong evidence of studies on people, it is impossible to know if these promises are identical to reality. The results we find indicate that consumers must move forward with caution when investing in air cleaning devices.

The gap between marketing claims and evidence of the event may not be surprising, but there is more at stake here. Some of these technologies Chemical generation Like ozone, formaldehyde and hydroxyl roots to kill microbes – the nationals that can You may hurt people if they are inhaled. The safety of these products should be the baseline requirements before they are widely published. However, among 112 studies to evaluate many of these nursing killings, only 14 of the secondary products have been tested. This is a blatant contradiction with pharmaceutical research, where the safety test is standard.

What is still unknown

More than 90 % of all studies tested these technologies by looking at the air itself – for example, measuring the quality of experimental gases, dust particles or microbes of air. The idea is that cleaner air should mean decreased chances of infection. But when it comes to air cleaning, researchers do not yet know how strong these air measurements are a real decrease in infections for people.

Determining the most secure and most effective options for assessing these technologies for toxic secondary products and evaluating them in real settings that include people. Also, unification will help how to measure effectiveness and potential damage in informing evidence -based decisions about improving air quality in homes, schools, healthcare facilities and other internal spaces.

the Research summary It is short of interesting academic work. Jerusalem BaduchsliliAssistant Professor, Country of Colorado Ancerots Medical University and Lisa PeruProfessor of Medicine and Public Health, Country of Colorado Ancerots Medical University. This article has been republished from Conversation Under the creative public license. Read The original article.