A Critique Of The Consumer Reports
Article On The Quadra Ionic Breeze

By: Jack Koenig, Executive Director
The Here’s Health Research Center

April 13, 2005

Last year, Consumer Reports published a VERY negative article on the Sharper Image Quadra Ionic Breeze. The gist of the article was that the Quadra didn’t perform as advertised and was a waste of money.

Sharper Image sued, contending Consumer Report’s testing was conducted in an artificial environment (a sealed room) and didn’t represent reality. Sharper Image further claimed the testing procedures may have been satisfactory for “old tech” air cleaners such as those using fans to circulate air through filters, but were woefully inadequate for modern day ionic cleaners such as the Quadra Ionic Breeze.

Researchers at the Here’s Health Research Center agreed that the testing methodology used by Consumer Reports was not consistent with ionic air cleaners and as a result, purchased a Quadra for their own testing. After all, how many of us live in a bubble or a sealed room?

In their tests, the Here’s Health Research Center determined the Ionic Breeze did indeed remove contaminants from the surrounding air. However the amount removed was not as much as one might expect, especially considering the high cost of the unit. Further tests, including those surrounding Sharper Image’s claims of eliminating smoke and odors from the environment, were even more disappointing. Researchers at Here’s Health reported the Ionic Breeze did a “less than stellar” job in removing smoke and odors from a typical 18 X 20 foot room and that on a price/performance basis, the Ionic Breeze left much to be desired. This was somewhat in agreement with the Consumer Reports study.

In the May 2005 issue of Consumer Reports, the Quadra was re-visited. Apparently to deflect arguments their latest research was a vendetta against Sharper Image, Consumer Reports included several other air cleaners in their study. Unfortunately, the selected group was like a fruit salad: oranges, apples, pears, and prunes. Not only did Consumer Reports select technologically different types of cleaners, but they also reverted to that same flawed testing methodology used in another century, making valid comparisons difficult at best.

Ionic air cleaners perform quite differently than conventional air cleaners. Ionic air cleaners flood a room with millions of negative ions which attach themselves to positively charged “nasties” in the surrounding air. As these interactions occur, the now overweight “nasties” fall to the ground, waiting to be collected during normal cleaning procedures. Conventional cleaners use fans to pull air in one end, pass it through a filter(s), and push it out the other end. Some high end units, like the Surround Air XJ-3000C and the XJ-3000D, combine the best of both techniques. Rating Ionic air cleaners with the same standards used to rate conventional cleaners is like comparing punched card equipment to modern day computers. There simply are no comparisons.

Not content with leaving the public confused with outdated and questionable testing procedures, Consumer Reports added another dimension to the mix by introducing ozone concerns.

Most associate ozone with air pollution. During hot summer months, the constant drum beat of “ozone alerts” has resulted in the perception ozone is deadly, especially for those suffering from respiratory diseases. But in reality, those alerts are confined to the polluted variety of ozone. There is another type of ozone, the helpful type. Ozone protects the world from radiation. Without our stratospheric ozone layer, we would all be “fried” by the sun’s rays. Ozone can be unleashed by waves crashing on the seashore. And yes, ozone is a byproduct of negative ion generators. Although we know of no recorded deaths from ozone, the EPA has listed 50 parts per billion (PPB) as a safe upper limit for ozone.

In that portion of the May 2005 issue of Consumer Reports devoted to air cleaners, a subsection described ozone emission levels from selected units. But once again, Consumer Reports’ testing methodology left them wide open to criticism. Instead of testing in a “real world” environment, Consumer Reports chose to measure ozone emissions just two inches away from the source. The Surround Air XJ-2000 is a perfect example of the questionable testing. Consumer Reports’ testers claim this unit emits 319 PPB of ozone two inches from the unit. However upon closer examination, the same report also states the XJ-2000 only emits 4 PPB of ozone at three feet… far below the 50 PPB safe level established by the EPA. Reporting emissions taken two inches from the source is akin to stating ammonia or bleach shouldn’t be used in households because fumes coming out of the top of the container can kill you! Or automobile engines should be replaced by horses because gasoline fumes near the top of a gasoline container are explosive! All may be true, but all are also total nonsense!

Although the Here’s Health Research Center believes the Quadra Ionic Breeze may be a disaster on a price/performance basis, our “real world” testing indicates it does have some cleaning capabilities. But we also believe these capabilities leave a lot to be desired, especially considering there are so many other air cleaners on the market which do a far superior job at a fraction of the cost.

To read more on the incredible benefits of negative ions, click HERE

To purchase one of these air purifiers directly from the manufacturer’s certified distributor, click HERE

To return to “Ionic Air Purifiert” gateway page, click HERE

To return to the HOME page, click HERE

To leave a comment, click HERE