Our Sharp air purifier review continues with an in-depth examination of the efficacy of Plasmacluster Ion technology, the innovative air purification technology invented by Sharp Corporation in 2000. Conceptually, an efficacy test is one conducted in the laboratory to demonstrate that the reactive agents of a technology, plasmacluster ions in this case, work in practice as opposed to just being a fancy theory demonstrable only with computer animation.

In a typical efficacy experiment, the reactive agents are pumped into a sealed container. The pathogen is injected into the same container. After a certain time period, a sample of the mixture of reactive agent and pathogen is extracted. This “treated” pathogen extract is injected into a laboratory-grown cell culture (Culture A). For control purposes, a sample of “untreated” pathogen is injected into another cell culture (Culture B). After a few days, the two cultures are compared. If the cells in the treated Culture A retain their original cell structures, while cells in the untreated Culture B have become deformed and damaged, then scientific proof has been obtained that the reactive agents are efficacious or effective.

In the process of our Sharp air purifier review, we viewed many official Sharp advertising videos in which plamascluster ions dramatically encircle and neutralize harmful pathogens. Whilst useful for illustrating activity at the molecular level, these computer animations tend to be less useful for the serious air purifier users who require scientific proof that can, ideally, be independently verifiable. No one wants to buy a sophisticated looking gadget that only burns electricity and does nothing else. No one wants to be lulled into complacency when there may be alternative air purification technologies that really improve indoor air quality.

No one is more aware of these genuine consumer concerns than Sharp Corporation. This is evident from the fact that no one goes to the extent that Sharp has to allay these fears. At last count, with 28 experiments done by various scientific organisations all over the world, Sharp is clearly in the lead. The only thing missing is that there has been no scientific peer review of any of these 28 experiments. Yet, ironically, if Sharp were to arrange for such a review, there is no value in the resultant work. A classic Catch 22 in action.

For the purpose of this Sharp air purifier review, we believe the 28 experiments have value to the discerning consumer. This is because, given that the experiments were conducted by qualified experts in scientific organisations, it is reasonable that a scientific peer review of any one of the experiments should be possible. It is also reasonable to expect that Sharp will not rebuff any genuine attempts to do a proper independent scientific peer review. In a nutshell, this is the crux of Sharp’s “academic marketing” for Plasmacluster Ion technology.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *