Just today, Paul Jensen and I were asked to comment on whether the Samsung Ion Generator works and whether a "donation" of 60 of these devices was a good idea, and if so, where they should be deployed.
Here is the company website:
Here is a sample of what the company says on the above site:
"Samsung Virus Doctor eliminates harmful viruses which cause of serious airborne diseases such as Influenza A, subtype H1N1 and even SARS. Many academic research organisations have proven the superior effectiveness up to 99.9% of S-plasma ion. Now you can feel perfectly safe about invisible tiny enemies in the air."
I would like to see this "evidence" as I doubt that good evidence exists, especially in clinical settings. Ion generators have been around a long time. Negatively charged ions can slowly reduce "dust" in clean room settings, but the rate of decline is far to slow to be relevant to airborne infection control. As you know, WHO recommends 6 - 12 ACH ventilation. We recently published data generated in a real hospital showing that upper room UVGI with low velocity ceiling fans can, properly applied, produce 24 equivalent ACH, or "EqACH". In our experience room air cleaners (filtration or UV) often produce less than 1 Eq ACH due to low flow rates compounded by "short-circuiting" of just filtered air back into the machine. I suspect that even under ideal test room conditions that negatively charged ions can "precipitate" airborne particles at even lower rates, well under 1 Eq ACH, and useless from an airborne infection control perspective.
I start this discussion in response to the outrageous claims that industry is willing to make to sell products, regardless of the harm that can be done in terms of false assurance and diversion from effective interventions.
Testing interventions against TB transmission is extremely difficult. The end point of interest is preventing TB infection and disease, but clinical trials have been very, vary hard to do since natural transmission is variable and hard to measure. Nevertheless, it has been done for such interventions as the use of masks on patients and the efficacy of upper room UVGI. It is not good enough to show that bacteria or viruses do not pass through a room air cleaner filter, for example. The question is, under real world conditions, how many Eq ACH are produced? Maybe with enough time negative ions can kill viruses in a test chamber - no claims are made for TB - but under real world conditions - how many Eq ACH are produced? If Samsung or "academic research organizations" have the data and are willing to describe the details of the studies, then let us see it. If not, this technology should be ignored.