| Our Sharp air purifier review continues with an | | | | the experiments were conducted by qualified |
| in-depth examination of the efficacy of | | | | experts in scientific organisations, it is reasonable |
| Plasmacluster Ion technology, the innovative air | | | | that a scientific peer review of any one of the |
| purification technology invented by Sharp | | | | experiments should be possible. It is also |
| Corporation in 2000. Conceptually, an efficacy test | | | | reasonable to expect that Sharp will not rebuff |
| is one conducted in the laboratory to | | | | any genuine attempts to do a proper independent |
| demonstrate that the reactive agents of a | | | | scientific peer review. In a nutshell, this is the crux |
| technology, plasmacluster ions in this case, work in | | | | of Sharp's "academic marketing" for Plasmacluster |
| practice as opposed to just being a fancy theory | | | | Ion technology. |
| demonstrable only with computer animation. | | | | For the record, the testing organizations, some of |
| In a typical efficacy experiment, the reactive | | | | which conducted more than one experiment, |
| agents are pumped into a sealed container. The | | | | were: |
| pathogen is injected into the same container. | | | | - Harvard School of Public Health, USA |
| After a certain time period, a sample of the | | | | - Ishikawa Health Service Association, Japan |
| mixture of reactive agent and pathogen is | | | | - Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control |
| extracted. This "treated" pathogen extract is | | | | and Prevention, China |
| injected into a laboratory-grown cell culture | | | | - Kitasato Research Center of Environmental |
| (Culture A). For control purposes, a sample of | | | | Sciences, Japan |
| "untreated" pathogen is injected into another cell | | | | - CT&T, Aachen University of Applied |
| culture (Culture B). After a few days, the two | | | | Science, Germany |
| cultures are compared. If the cells in the treated | | | | - Kitasato Institute, Medical Center Hospital, Japan |
| Culture A retain their original cell structures, while | | | | - University of Lubeck, Germany |
| cells in the untreated Culture B have become | | | | - Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of |
| deformed and damaged, then scientific proof has | | | | Matter, Hiroshima University, Japan |
| been obtained that the reactive agents are | | | | - Asthma Society of Canada |
| efficacious or effective. | | | | - Seoul University, Korea |
| In the process of our Sharp air purifier review, | | | | - Retroscreen Virology, Ltd., London, UK |
| we viewed many official Sharp advertising videos | | | | - Osaka City University Medical School. |
| in which plamascluster ions dramatically encircle | | | | Critics of Sharp's technology and other air |
| and neutralize harmful pathogens. Whilst useful for | | | | purification technology should not dogmatically cling |
| illustrating activity at the molecular level, these | | | | to their narrow definition of there being no |
| computer animations tend to be less useful for | | | | scientific peer review. They need to recognise the |
| the serious air purifier users who require scientific | | | | Catch 22 situation that Sharp, and any other air |
| proof that can, ideally, be independently verifiable. | | | | purification manufacturer, is up against. Idealism |
| No one wants to buy a sophisticated looking | | | | and perfection can result in the baby being thrown |
| gadget that only burns electricity and does nothing | | | | out with the water. |
| else. No one wants to be lulled into complacency | | | | In our Sharp air purifier review, we believe in |
| when there may be alternative air purification | | | | encouraging constructive criticism. Instead of |
| technologies that really improve indoor air quality. | | | | destructive disdain that hampers and dampens |
| No one is more aware of these genuine | | | | the enthusiasm of researchers seeking |
| consumer concerns than Sharp Corporation. This | | | | state-of-the-art air purification technologies, we |
| is evident from the fact that no one goes to the | | | | urge the relevant parties to leverage on existing |
| extent that Sharp has to allay these fears. At last | | | | work done by the various manufacturers. As a |
| count, with 28 experiments done by various | | | | starting point, acknowledging prima facie integrity |
| scientific organisations all over the world, Sharp is | | | | of the 28 experiments conducted by Sharp is a |
| clearly in the lead. The only thing missing is that | | | | small but important step in advancing research |
| there has been no scientific peer review of any | | | | and development of air purification science. Since |
| of these 28 experiments. Yet, ironically, if Sharp | | | | it is impossible for any individual air purifier user to |
| were to arrange for such a review, there is no | | | | conduct efficacy tests, another constructive route |
| value in the resultant work. A classic Catch 22 in | | | | is to lobby the relevant authorities to initiate and |
| action. | | | | fund the comprehensive scientific peer reviews of |
| For the purpose of this Sharp air purifier review, | | | | all existing air purification technologies, be they |
| we believe the 28 experiments have value to the | | | | from Sharp or otherwise. |
| discerning consumer. This is because, given that | | | | |