What THEY Tell You About Air Purifiers is BS!

Comments · 162

• AI

  @AirPurificationEducation · 1 year ago (edited) · pinned

  👉🏆BEST AIR PURIFIERS 2026 for ALLERGIES, ASTHMA and DUST RANKINGS: <br><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nsymKTfl393ksTEYL9rZu3YwyBXi7cuiOX_AdJC8U_U/edit?gid=350529557#gid=350529557">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nsymKTfl393ksTEYL9rZu3YwyBXi7cuiOX_AdJC8U_U/edit?gid=350529557#gid=350529557</a>

  2

• VO

  @volkstouareg5620 · 1 year ago

  You probably know this but for your viewers...the Vacuum Wars test only gave the Dyson a higher rating than the IQ air because of the &quot;smart features&quot;. &nbsp;The IQ air had the higher score overall for the filtration tests yet they decided to put it as #2!!!

  40

• AD

  @AdamWongAirFanta · 1 year ago

  For air purifiers, it is actually very simple. You calculate the amount of CADR it delivers at the same noise level you can accept, and divide that by the cost of the device. Then you get CFM/$. Larger, better. Numbers don&apos;t lie.

  19

• PA

  @paulnoel8470 · 1 year ago (edited)

  You have a very simple (quite approximate but gives a good estimate) way to compare MERV13 and HEPA<br>Typically MERV 13 filter 90% of particules above 1um and HEPA 99%. So you need to have twice the amount of air filtered through a MERV13 to reach the filtration of an HEPA. For particules of less than 1 um MERV13 captures 75% and HEPA still 99%. So you need to have 4 times the air filtered to reach the filtration of HEPA (more if you consider 99.9% HEPA)<br>Typically a CR box has two to three times the Clean air delivery rate of a commercial air purifier of similar cost (400m3/h vs 150-200 m3/h for around 100$). So rule of thumb is that it is expected to be similar for big particles but worse for small ones. <br>Except if you have a very big room and your air is just not renewed quickly enough and you need a high CADR.<br>CR boxes are great in a big room where you need to filter a lot of air and especially if you filter something that is constantly created in the room typically virus droplets... they are great as a quick and cheap solution for covid (and other respiratory diseases) in classrooms or in public places. Well they were great during the covid crisis at least now that commercial solutions that are well tested exist, let&apos;s have cleaner air everywhere

  5

• LO

  @loktevra · 1 year ago

  Why I can&apos;t get a filter from good purifier in the list and put it into box with random fan? They all just a boxes with a fan and filter. Don&apos;t we just test a filter quality at the end?

  6

• EM

  @empireofsteeI · 2 months ago (edited)

  There&apos;s definitely more to air filtration than particulates. I&apos;d say most people are affected by the toxic off gassing of inferior material in their homes (vinyl, laminate, particle board, linoleum, fire retardants, plastics, toxic paints, cooking, and then of course outdoor exhaust pollution, ozone and the list goes on... After testing many with our sensitive health issues, we found most to be about the same with our favorite being Dyson for using a glass-media instead of an oil-based polyester filter, many people don&apos;t know but the filter itself can absorb and release odors back into the air. We found the Dyson&apos;s exhaust air to stay fresher much longer because of this. And the sensors seem to work, especially the formaldehyde and VOC sensors that had let us know our new tile flooring was actually off gassing due to fillers added (had no idea some tile companies do this). We swapped the flooring and went with a healthier (more expensive) option and we all felt better. The only issue we found with Dyson is that they&apos;re meant for smaller spaces and the filters are expensive to replace. But if you can afford a few in your home and replace the filters every six months, they work. Next best option is Winix 5500-1 but the filters are made of polyester so they smell for a few days and retain more odor over time. I mean does it really make sense to clean the air with a petroleum-based media? We also found the plastic housing on the Winix to have more off gassing compared to the harder, shiner plastic used by Dyson. We also like the fact that the Dyson can be pointed at you in the summer acting as a fan. And it can oscillate. So much to love about it. But Winix filters very well and the replacement filters are cheap. Just make sure to get GENUINE replacements, not knockoffs.

  2

• JU

  @justanotherhumanSH · 7 months ago (edited)

  If you&apos;re in a controlled environment of course the HEPA will outperform the Merv. But that said in a real word situation with a hepa filter for it to work quickly to target incoming pollutants you will need power. Power tends to come with noise and not to mention the cost for filters. If the Merv allows more air through at less power it&apos;s effectively worse at cleaning the air that passes but if it can achieve 70% with higher airflow then that means you&apos;ve targeted the bulk of the incoming pollutant which can happen at any given time. All of that plus the fact less demands in terms of power realistically speaking the Merv should be more effective at stabilising the environment whilst a hepa filter would struggle to keep up with the constant fluctuations of an unstable environment. For example if you put a hepa filter in a room with a source of smoke let&apos;s say it takes five minutes to clean the current air in the room to a stable level. This is recorded from the source of the pollutant (in this case smoke) being terminated. Within the five minutes it takes to clean the air what&apos;s to say there&apos;s not another incoming pollutant that ramps the descending pm 2.5 level up again? Suddenly you&apos;re in an environment that never truly gets close to being clear. As I can understand the only way to tackle the pollutant is to tackle as much as you can as quickly as you can so you get gaps between pollutants of fresher air. To achieve this with a small machine that has hepa filter inside just doesn&apos;t seem practical. You&apos;d need a big loud and expensive energy consuming machine that can effectively pull all of that smoke through it asap. So the logic is why not tackle 70 % of it quickly using a smaller machine delivering higher airflow and then have a small HEPA filter somewhere else that does more of a spot clean to tackle the smaller stuff. air tends to choose the path of least restance right so most of the air will head towards the fan inside the mervs whilst a smaller amount will go to the HEPA potentially expanding the lifespan of the more expensive HEPA filter? I don&apos;t know but that&apos;s how I interpret this

  6

• AD

  @Adlerno · 10 months ago

  what an amazing video. thank you so much!

  1

• FO

  @folcotook3049 · 1 year ago (edited)

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeGa90e65SE&amp;t=845">14:05</a> - came for some knowledge, stayed for the sarcasm and shade. 😂<br><br>But also, I recently came into possession of part of the outer skin of the Apollo 13 lunar lander and am selling 1 inch souvenir squares. Each is numbered as part of a limited edition collectible. A perfect keepsake to pair with your newly acquired moon rock.<br><br>Message me for details. 😉

  7

• KI

  @KirkLazurus · 1 year ago

  Please review the Sharp FXJ80UW if you can.

  2

• NI

  @NickWindham · 1 year ago

  Good videos!

  1

• AN

  @AntongiulioArmentano · 1 year ago (edited)

  I have a doubt regarding the issue of time. In the long run (&gt;30 min), HEPA filters are better. But this somewhat assumes a room where no new particles are introduced? What about if someone is in the room and continues to release virus particles and shred dead skin? In that case wouldn’t it be better to have an air purifier that is quicker to eliminate them as soon as they are released, ie higher CADR? Thank you

  11