SAGE Committee Guidelines on How to Choose a Good Air Purifier

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has been providing British Government ministers and officials with advice throughout the Covid19 pandemic, based on external scientific evidence and a wide source of essential information. The Environmental and Modelling group (EMG) for SAGE recently released an important research paper on the subject of Air Purification covering:

Potential application of Air Cleaning devices and personal decontamination to manage transmission of COVID-19 SAGE-EMG

Annex 1 has a very useful summary of Air Cleaning Technologies and their potential application.

Currently there is little data available on the health risks of devices containing multiple technologies (ASHRAE 2015). However, if a device incorporates a technology that is known to pose a health risk that cannot be easily mitigated, the device should not be used regardless of the other technologies it incorporates unless its safety and efficacy can be unequivocally and scientifically demonstrated by relevant test data.

While there is no direct evidence that use of high efficiency particulate filters can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, it is widely accepted that the virus is contained within exhaled droplets and aerosols, with those in the 1-100 micrometer range likely to pose the highest risks. 

Devices incorporating HEPA filters or other high grades of filter (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) are therefore likely to be effective at removing a substantial proportion of airborne virus. HEPA filters are generally rated on their efficiency at the most penetrating particle size which is between 0.1 and 0.3 micrometers.

The evidence suggests that devices based on high efficiency filtration and germicidal UVC technologies are likely to be effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Well designed and appropriately installed devices based on these technologies are appropriate to use to supplement ventilation in some situations.

Technologies based on UVA/UVB, ionisation, plasma, electrostatic precipitation and oxidation methods have limited evidence of efficacy against the virus and/or significant concerns over toxicological risks during application. As such SAGE EMG does not recommend using these devices in occupied rooms against COVID-19 without further independent evidence to demonstrate their viability and safety in realistic settings

Rensair not only utilises HEPA13 filters, but also UVC light to shine on the filters to eradicate trapped airborne pollutants. Find out how the Rensair air purifier works.

The majority of systems on the market quote values of 99% single-pass effectiveness or greater. Testing of these devices shows that while this is correct for some, others may have much lower single pass effectiveness due to poor manufacturing or issues such as poorly fitting filters

Computational modelling studies show that even something as simple as positioning the device on the opposite wall of the same room could reduce the UV dose received by the room air by up to 1.6 times due to the interaction between the UV irradiance field and the room airflow (Noakes et al 2006).

In a yet-to-be-peer-reviewed study, Curtius et al (2020) made experimental measurements of particle concentrations within classrooms with and without air cleaners. They observed a greater than 90% reduction in aerosol concentration and estimated a six fold reduction in risk from the use of air cleaners.

Potential application of air cleaning devices in different scenarios (from Table 3) 

Recommended:

Not Recommended:

On our website, Rensair provides tests carried out by well-respected laboratories to demonstrate the efficacy of Rensair units. We demonstrate that not only do Rensair units provide extremely high levels of air purification, but due to the exceptional design, they are also effective independent of where placed in a room. See Rensair’s tests performed by independent laboratories here.

Many air cleaning devices can have negative health impacts which most commonly relate to the significant effect on the indoor air chemistry that results when chemicals are emitted directly or formed from the resulting chemistry following their use (Table 4 provides the potential health hazards associated with air cleaning devices).

The health hazard posed by an air cleaner depends strongly on the technology. Some devices such as chemical oxidation devices deliberately produce compounds, such as ozone, to inactivate microorganisms. If the concentration is sufficient for the device to effectively disinfect the room, it is likely that the concentration will also exceed safe limits for human health

Devices based on UVC at 254nm wavelength pose a particular risk to skin and eyes if designed and installed poorly. Some poorly designed UVC devices can also produce ozone. Both chemical by-products and UV light can potentially cause damage to materials and fixtures in a building.

Noise: Above 80 dB(A) daily exposure, for people at work, there ought to be noise risk assessment under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations (HSE, 2005). The threshold level of 75dBA equates to ‘no risk’ in terms of a 24-hour daily noise exposure.

Dust and particle build up reduces the CADR (Clean Air Delivery Rate) of air cleaners due to both reduced filter performance and increased filter bypass. The typical operating life for UVC lamps is 9000h.

Within a class of devices, some are high quality and likely to be effective while some use poor components and poor manufacturing and are ineffective. There are examples of devices which do not meet safety limits on emissions despite claims by the manufacturer.

The design of Rensair was optimised to make it efficient for use in hospitals. It incorporates many features to ensure that the HEPA13 filter remains efficient with low noise levels over a long period of time, provides an impressive coverage of air purification, and that the maintenance is a simple, straightforward and safe operation. Learn more about how Rensair works here.

Health and safety concerns – whole-body walk-through treatment. Major concerns exist over the impact of such treatments on people’s health and well-being. In recent months scientists and medical authorities internationally have voiced their concerns about the harm that whole body spray systems may do and their ineffectiveness.

Table 5 depicts the health risks of dermal and inhalation exposure from common sprayed disinfectants. 

There is currently no strong evidence that using a continuous spray chemical in the air will be an effective control against SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Use of spray chemicals for air cleaning is not recommended by SAGE EMG; the improvement of ventilation systems or application of filter-based or UVC air cleaning devices is a more appropriate solution.

In selecting devices, it is important to consider all aspects, not just the potential ability to remove or kill the virus.

Within a class of devices, some are high quality and likely to be effective while some use poor components and poor manufacturing and are ineffective. There are examples of devices which do not meet safety limits on emissions despite claims by the manufacturer.

To use air cleaning devices effectively, urgent action is therefore needed to support industry and consumers in ensuring they are selecting and using devices safely and effectively. This includes:

Rensair welcomes the 4 points raised by SAGE. In the course of working with clients, Rensair provides its clients with

Find out how Rensair can help your business.

Contact us.