IAQ-cpr MESSAGE TO THE MARKET
A message from:
Christian Barlow Chair of the Board at IAQ CPR
The market condition:
Since the beginning of invention, man has been fighting itself on trying to remedy what already has been solved since the dawn of time. We see man’s error and pollution on the Lord’s design. Electricity brought thermally controlled environments, but it also brought sealed environments that allow for mold, mildews, allergens, and toxicities to flourish. Invention has only gone after the solution to the sole problem at our forefront, it solves what is immediately causing the most pain, with minimal forecast on the side effects of that relief.
For years we saw engineers and architects tell the world what the best built environment was, how to scale that adjust airflow, filter particulates, and if the air was too bad, create solution through dilution. For years this was an acceptable practice, acceptable to dilute your indoor air, with outdoor air, while not considering the role that played on the outdoor air. While not accounting for the fact, no matter how many times you dilute, you still aren’t solving the issue. You aren’t taking accountability for the pollution of that implementation.
The world is full of pain because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic did bring good. It shifted the industry from an industry lead by engineers, with no medical application experience, to an industry lead by health professionals and experts in environmental quality. We no longer just relied on solution through dilution, but rather looked at layering known and unknown technologies to solve the indoor environment. It allowed people from the background with long term vision on stability and effect of invention implementation to lead, rather than follow.
For years companies claimed their product was the one and only technology. We heard that UV technologies were the most proven technology. Despite it being used in the 1930’s for operating rooms and infant wards, it wasn’t used heavily in conditioned spaces until the rise in TB in 1985. The discussion that is never addressed is bulb lifetime, the materials used in UV bulbs, the need to recycle said bulbs, and the likelihood of the facility to properly maintain the technology.
We heard that MERV 13 or greater was an ideal filter choice, despite the increased strain, wear and tear, and loading impact it had on the HVAC systems installed. Sorbent filtration could solve most issues, despite it not addressing micro and macro pockets of air that were not being circulated within the HVAC system, leading to more solution through dilution approaches.
We heard Bi-Polar Ionization was the greatest technology, but it also had significant push-back when actual scientific approach was applied. We heard that Ionization in general is an emerging technology, even though air ionization has been used in the medical field since the 1940’s and direct ionization has been used since 1895 with the invention of X-Ray technology. The issue was that Bi-Polar technologies did not properly produce saturation needed to replicate test environments. The ionization also did not account for thousands of medical papers related to lifetime of ions, proper ratio of ions, and voltage levels of ionization to lower reactive oxygen species (the most discussed being Ozone). While many of these technologies went on to gain UL-2998, or nominal production of Ozone, none of these technologies corrected their ion production to replicate what medical sciences already told us, the design parameters needed for ionization.
We saw the introduction of Dry Hydrogen Peroxide generators, despite the medical white papers stating we needed to actively measure and readjust the saturation of production, we saw single speed, single output devices being hailed as the cutting edge. With no demonstrable ability to prove their product wasn’t creating pre-oxidative stress indicators and other side effects.
The issue being every technology has its advantages and disadvantages.
Technology Advances Rapidly:
Technology doubles every two years, a saying that is commonly known in the IoT and technology fields, but ignored within our building environments. Access to smart room sensors, advanced computing programs, artificial intelligence, and smart drivers has been economically feasible for years, despite this fact, the industry hasn’t readily implemented a requirement for it.
Why is it okay for our phones, social media, cars, and other technology to think for us and prevent error, but the industries that effect our health the most we allow to not include proper safeties, thought processes, and predicative analysis to avoid waste and harm?
When have we ever been able to fix a problem that we can’t see? Why is it okay for our buildings and air quality products to generate unknown byproducts and results, without us being able to visualize and see if said byproducts are more beneficial in the long term than the issue at hand?
IAQ-cpr and Its Challenge to the Industry:
IAQ-cpr was founded on the fundamental theory that all inventions should balance the short-term role the invention has on the problem, compared to the long-term influence it will have on the well being or harm of the world. IAQ-cpr set to visualize the problem first, to tailor the solution to the problem. We decided oversaturation and under saturation was no longer satisfactory to our customers or families. We set out to better understand where each indoor air quality technique was most beneficial to the space and how to properly layer multiple technologies to leverage their best-in-class role, while also understanding their downfalls.
What we found is that while filters, UV, and demand control ventilation was at a stable level of technology, others were not. Bi-Polar Ionization, PCO, and DHP systems did not live up to their best-in-class design. They approached air quality as a blanket approach, allowing for solution through over generation or under generation, with no way to validate which condition existed in the space. There was no tailoring, rather a sell as many products as quickly as feasible and it will be good enough.
IAQ-cpr decided to improve these technologies to help the layered approach grow and blanket solutions wither and die. IAQ-cpr spent years reading medical white papers, scientific research papers, and interacting with field specialists to better understand how to implement the technology. We held on selling good enough products, despite huge funding sources being given out blindly, because it wasn’t good enough for our customers.
IAQ-cpr concluded that the only way to properly design an additive air cleaning technology was to Measure, Analyze, Adjust, then Verify (MAAV) your production and impact on each built environment. We implemented microcomputers into every one of our sensors and controllers to allow individual space learning through artificial intelligence. Then by allowing artificial intelligence to ramp up and down ionization fields, it allowed proper saturation for each individual space, while limiting the economic impact on the facility. In many cases the IAQ-cpr system was less money than current additive air cleaning technologies per square foot, when properly measured and implemented.
Our challenge is that the industry would move to proper visualization of the built environment and implementation of smart sensors to guarantee what is marketed is what is delivered, through and through. Hold these manufacturers, engineers, architects, and building design organizations accountable. Stop allowing good enough to them, to be good enough for you.
Since the inception of IAQ-cpr, we have led by science, instead of marketing magic. We have and will always implement best in class practices, based on actual medical and scientific papers. We will never tell you our technology is the end all technology, but rather how to properly apply our technology. We promise to challenge the industry and share all the knowledge our company gains because of our constant testing and communication with end users, scientists, and medical professionals.
We would ask you to learn these technologies. Push back when a company is only pushing one solution, instead of designing towards best technology for the application. Our company would never suggest we can solve all built environments and applications, we would caution you to question any company that did. UV, PCO, Filters, and Controlled/Variable Ionization are all phenomenal technologies, when applied together and properly layered based on building design, challenge your engineers and architects to use them properly.