ArticleToxics2022
The Actual Efficacy of an Air Purifier at Different Outdoor PM
Article in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is important to control airborne particles in residential houses for protecting human health. Indoor particulate matter of <2.5 μm (PM2.5) can be effectively monitored and managed using an air purifier. In this study, the actual clean air delivery rates in residential houses (CADRActual) were acquired by comparing decay rates of fine particles with and without operations of the air purifier under actual conditions, following the standard CADR of an air purifier obtained in a closed test chamber. The measurements of CADRActual at different outdoor PM2.5 concentrations over a month in two residential houses revealed different airtightness levels, compared to the standardized clean air delivery rate of the air purifier (CADRAP). Air changes per hour at 50 Pa (ACH50) was 4.8 h−1 for “house A” (built in 2007) and 2.1 h−1 for “house B” (built in 2018). The CADR of the air purifier used in this study was 10.6 m3/min, while the averaged CADRActual at the “house A” was 7.2 m3/min (approximately 66% of the CADR of the air purifier) and 9.5 m3/min at “house B” (approximately 90% of the CADR of the air purifier). Under the outdoor PM2.5 concentrations of <35 μg/m3, the averaged CADRActual of house A and house B were 7.8 ± 0.3 and 9.7 ± 0.4 m3/min, respectively. However, under the outdoor PM2.5 concentrations of >35 μg/m3, the analogous averaged concentrations were 6.8 ± 0.6 and 9.6 ± 0.3 m3/min for houses A and B, respectively. The measured CADRActual agreed well with the theoretical estimates of CADRActual acquired by the mass balance equation using the infiltration rate of ACH50/20. We also estimated CADRActual/CADRAP for house C built in 2017, where the ACH50 was 1.8 h−1. Overall, this study demonstrated how CADRActual/CADRAP of an air purifier at residential houses can be predicted according to outdoor PM2.5 concentration and airtightness of the house. As shown, it can be closer to 1 at lower ACH50 houses and at lower outdoor PM2.5 concentrations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.