posted
I've heard very different things about ozone. Some say it's the best thing ever, some say it harms the lungs. I really don't know.
I do agree with Cobweb, though--get rid of the mold that is causing the problem! The best book I found on the subject is "The Mold Survival Guide: For Your Home and Your Health" by Jeffrey C. May. He gives detailed instructions on how to find mold in the house, how to tackle clean-up jobs, and when to call in a professional. Highly recommended.
Posts: 90 | From Sunny Southern Cali | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
sizzled
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1357
posted
I heard a company got sued for having their purifier emit ozone.
They fixed it by using a baffle that changes the O3 to O.
I think Cob is right. You have to get rid of the mold first.
What kind of mold do you have? Hope that's not too personal!! Posts: 4258 | From over there | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
i'm not sure yet what kind of mold it is, or if it's even a problem (though my gut tells me it's at least a moderate one).
my LLMD is having me get my apartment tested by nelco labs. i just ordered the kit today.
GiGi
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 259
posted
We have the Propolis Vaporizer - there are different models. I have one in my car - You do need refills for the propolis. We got ours from Italy, but Biopure carries them now also. People using them with asthma problems, etc.
It wipes out a number of microbes, including molds.
Take care.
Posts: 9834 | From Washington State | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an ozone cleaner. It says if you run the ozone part for only 15 min at a time while in the bldg, then it's safe....(?)
It's made by Prozone and is supposed to kill viruses, mold, etc.
PS....It runs all the time, but the ozone cleaner comes on by a timer, which you can set to go off when you're away from the home.
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96222 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
sizzled
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1357
posted
Is There Such a Thing as "Good Ozone" and "Bad Ozone"?
The phrase "good up high - bad nearby" has been used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make the distinction between ozone in the upper and lower atmosphere. Ozone in the upper atmosphere--referred to as "stratospheric ozone"--helps filter out damaging ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Though ozone in the stratosphere is protective, ozone in the atmosphere - which is the air we breathe - can be harmful to the respiratory system. Harmful levels of ozone can be produced by the interaction of sunlight with certain chemicals emitted to the environment (e.g., automobile emissions and chemical emissions of industrial plants). These harmful concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere are often accompanied by high concentrations of other pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide, fine particles, and hydrocarbons. Whether pure or mixed with other chemicals, ozone can be harmful to health.
You can order the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard's "Good Up High Bad Nearby", EPA publication number EPA-451/K-03-001, June 2003 and "Ozone and Your Health" [www.epa.gov/airnow/brochure.html] EPA publication number EPA-452/F-99-003, September 1999 Top of page
Are Ozone Generators Effective in Controlling Indoor Air Pollution?
Available scientific evidence shows that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone has little potential to remove indoor air contaminants.
Some manufacturers or vendors suggest that ozone will render almost every chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading.
First, a review of scientific research shows that, for many of the chemicals commonly found in indoor environments, the reaction process with ozone may take months or years (Boeniger, 1995). For all practical purposes, ozone does not react at all with such chemicals. And contrary to specific claims by some vendors, ozone generators are not effective in removing carbon monoxide (Salls, 1927; Shaughnessy et al., 1994) or formaldehyde (Esswein and Boeniger, 1994).
Second, for many of the chemicals with which ozone does readily react, the reaction can form a variety of harmful or irritating by-products (Weschler et al., 1992a, 1992b, 1996; Zhang and Lioy, 1994). For example, in a laboratory experiment that mixed ozone with chemicals from new carpet, ozone reduced many of these chemicals, including those which can produce new carpet odor. However, in the process, the reaction produced a variety of aldehydes, and the total concentration of organic chemicals in the air increased rather than decreased after the introduction of ozone (Weschler, et. al., 1992b). In addition to aldehydes, ozone may also increase indoor concentrations of formic acid (Zhang and Lioy, 1994), both of which can irritate the lungs if produced in sufficient amounts. Some of the potential by-products produced by ozone's reactions with other chemicals are themselves very reactive and capable of producing irritating and corrosive by-products (Weschler and Shields, 1996, 1997a, 1997b). Given the complexity of the chemical reactions that occur, additional research is needed to more completely understand the complex interactions of indoor chemicals in the presence of ozone.
Third, ozone does not remove particles (e.g., dust and pollen) from the air, including the particles that cause most allergies. However, some ozone generators are manufactured with an "ion generator" or "ionizer" in the same unit. An ionizer is a device that disperses negatively (and/or positively) charged ions into the air. These ions attach to particles in the air giving them a negative (or positive) charge so that the particles may attach to nearby surfaces such as walls or furniture, or attach to one another and settle out of the air. In recent experiments, ionizers were found to be less effective in removing particles of dust, tobacco smoke, pollen or fungal spores than either high efficiency particle filters or electrostatic precipitators. (Shaughnessy et al., 1994; Pierce, et al., 1996). However, it is apparent from other experiments that the effectiveness of particle air cleaners, including electrostatic precipitators, ion generators, or pleated filters varies widely (U.S. EPA, 1995). There is evidence to show that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone is not effective at removing many odor-causing chemicals.
In an experiment designed to produce formaldehyde concentrations representative of an embalming studio, where formaldehyde is the main odor producer, ozone showed no effect in reducing formaldehyde concentration (Esswein and Boeniger, 1994). Other experiments suggest that body odor may be masked by the smell of ozone but is not removed by ozone (Witheridge and Yaglou, 1939). Ozone is not considered useful for odor removal in building ventilation systems (ASHRAE, 1989).
While there are few scientific studies to support the claim that ozone effectively removes odors, it is plausible that some odorous chemicals will react with ozone. For example, in some experiments, ozone appeared to react readily with certain chemicals, including some chemicals that contribute to the smell of new carpet (Weschler, 1992b; Zhang and Lioy, 1994). Ozone is also believed to react with acrolein, one of the many odorous and irritating chemicals found in secondhand tobacco smoke (US EPA, 1995). If used at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone applied to indoor air does not effectively remove viruses, bacteria, mold, or other biological pollutants.
Some data suggest that low levels of ozone may reduce airborne concentrations and inhibit the growth of some biological organisms while ozone is present, but ozone concentrations would have to be 5 - 10 times higher than public health standards allow before the ozone could decontaminate the air sufficiently to prevent survival and regeneration of the organisms once the ozone is removed (Dyas, et al.,1983; Foarde et al., 1997).
Even at high concentrations, ozone may have no effect on biological contaminants embedded in porous material such as duct lining or ceiling tiles (Foarde et al, 1997). In other words, ozone produced by ozone generators may inhibit the growth of some biological agents while it is present, but it is unlikely to fully decontaminate the air unless concentrations are high enough to be a health concern if people are present. Even with high levels of ozone, contaminants embedded in porous material may not be affected at all. Top of page
If I Follow Manufacturers' Directions, Can I be Harmed?
Results of some controlled studies show that concentrations of ozone considerably higher than these standards are possible even when a user follows the manufacturer's operating instructions.
There are many brands and models of ozone generators on the market. They vary in the amount of ozone they can produce. In many circumstances, the use of an ozone generator may not result in ozone concentrations that exceed public health standards. But many factors affect the indoor concentration of ozone so that under some conditions ozone concentrations may exceed public health standards.
In one study (Shaughnessy and Oatman, 1991), a large ozone generator recommended by the manufacturer for spaces "up to 3,000 square feet," was placed in a 350 square foot room and run at a high setting. The ozone in the room quickly reached concentrations that were exceptionally high--0.50 to 0.80 ppm which is 5-10 times higher than public health limits (see Table 1).
In an EPA study, several different devices were placed in a home environment, in various rooms, with doors alternately opened and closed, and with the central ventilation system fan alternately turned on and off. The results showed that some ozone generators, when run at a high setting with interior doors closed, would frequently produce concentrations of 0.20 - 0.30 ppm. A powerful unit set on high with the interior doors opened achieved values of 0.12 to 0.20 ppm in adjacent rooms. When units were not run on high, and interior doors were open, concentrations generally did not exceed public health standards (US EPA, 1995).
The concentrations reported above were adjusted to exclude that portion of the ozone concentration brought in from the outdoors. Indoor concentrations of ozone brought in from outside are typically 0.01- 0.02 ppm, but could be as high as 0.03 - 0.05 ppm (Hayes, 1991; U.S. EPA, 1996b; Weschler et al., 1989, 1996; Zhang and Lioy; 1994). If the outdoor portion of ozone were included in the indoor concentrations reported above, the concentrations inside would have been correspondingly higher, increasing the risk of excessive ozone exposure.
None of the studies reported above involved the simultaneous use of more than one device. The simultaneous use of multiple devices increases the total ozone output and therefore greatly increases the risk of excessive ozone exposure. Top of page
Why is it Difficult to Control Ozone Exposure with an Ozone Generator?
The actual concentration of ozone produced by an ozone generator depends on many factors. Concentrations will be higher if a more powerful device or more than one device is used, if a device is placed in a small space rather than a large space, if interior doors are closed rather than open and, if the room has fewer rather than more materials and furnishings that adsorb or react with ozone and, provided that outdoor concentrations of ozone are low, if there is less rather than more outdoor air ventilation.
The proximity of a person to the ozone generating device can also affect one's exposure. The concentration is highest at the point where the ozone exits from the device, and generally decreases as one moves further away.
Manufacturers and vendors advise users to size the device properly to the space or spaces in which it is used. Unfortunately, some manufacturers' recommendations about appropriate sizes for particular spaces have not been sufficiently precise to guarantee that ozone concentrations will not exceed public health limits. Further, some literature distributed by vendors suggests that users err on the side of operating a more powerful machine than would normally be appropriate for the intended space, the rationale being that the user may move in the future, or may want to use the machine in a larger space later on. Using a more powerful machine increases the risk of excessive ozone exposure.
Ozone generators typically provide a control setting by which the ozone output can be adjusted. The ozone output of these devices is usually not proportional to the control setting. That is, a setting at medium does not necessarily generate an ozone level that is halfway between the levels at low and high. The relationship between the control setting and the output varies considerably among devices, although most appear to elevate the ozone output much more than one would expect as the control setting is increased from low to high. In experiments to date, the high setting in some devices generated 10 times the level obtained at the medium setting (US EPA, 1995). Manufacturer's instructions on some devices link the control setting to room size and thus indicate what setting is appropriate for different room sizes. However, room size is only one factor affecting ozone levels in the room.
In addition to adjusting the control setting to the size of the room, users have sometimes been advised to lower the ozone setting if they can smell the ozone. Unfortunately, the ability to detect ozone by smell varies considerably from person to person, and one's ability to smell ozone rapidly deteriorates in the presence of ozone. While the smell of ozone may indicate that the concentration is too high, lack of odor does not guarantee that levels are safe.
At least one manufacturer is offering units with an ozone sensor that turns the ozone generator on and off with the intent of maintaining ozone concentrations in the space below health standards. EPA is currently evaluating the effectiveness and reliability of these sensors, and plans to conduct further research to improve society's understanding of ozone chemistry indoors. EPA will report its findings as the results of this research become available.
Can Ozone be Used in Unoccupied Spaces?
Ozone has been extensively used for water purification, but ozone chemistry in water is not the same as ozone chemistry in air. High concentrations of ozone in air, when people are not present, are sometimes used to help decontaminate an unoccupied space from certain chemical or biological contaminants or odors (e.g., fire restoration). However, little is known about the chemical by-products left behind by these processes (Dunston and Spivak, 1997). While high concentrations of ozone in air may sometimes be appropriate in these circumstances, conditions should be sufficiently controlled to insure that no person or pet becomes exposed. Ozone can adversely affect indoor plants, and damage materials such as rubber, electrical wire coatings, and fabrics and art work containing susceptible dyes and pigments (U.S. EPA, 1996a).
Top of page
What Other Methods Can Be Used to Control Indoor Air Pollution?
The three most common approaches to reducing indoor air pollution, in order of effectiveness, are:
Source Control: Eliminate or control the sources of pollution; Ventilation: Dilute and exhaust pollutants through outdoor air ventilation, and Air Cleaning: Remove pollutants through proven air cleaning methods. Of the three, the first approach -- source control -- is the most effective. This involves minimizing the use of products and materials that cause indoor pollution, employing good hygiene practices to minimize biological contaminants (including the control of humidity and moisture, and occasional cleaning and disinfection of wet or moist surfaces), and using good housekeeping practices to control particles.
The second approach -- outdoor air ventilation -- is also effective and commonly employed. Ventilation methods include installing an exhaust fan close to the source of contaminants, increasing outdoor air flows in mechanical ventilation systems, and opening windows, especially when pollutant sources are in use.
The third approach -- air cleaning -- is not generally regarded as sufficient in itself, but is sometimes used to supplement source control and ventilation. Air filters, electronic particle air cleaners and ionizers are often used to remove airborne particles, and gas adsorbing material is sometimes used to remove gaseous contaminants when source control and ventilation are inadequate.
See Additional Resources section below for more detailed information about these methods.
Top of page
Conclusions
Whether in its pure form or mixed with other chemicals, ozone can be harmful to health.
When inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs. Relatively low amounts of ozone can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath and, throat irritation. It may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma as well as compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections.
Some studies show that ozone concentrations produced by ozone generators can exceed health standards even when one follows manufacturer's instructions.
Many factors affect ozone concentrations including the amount of ozone produced by the machine(s), the size of the indoor space, the amount of material in the room with which ozone reacts, the outdoor ozone concentration, and the amount of ventilation. These factors make it difficult to control the ozone concentration in all circumstances.
Available scientific evidence shows that, at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone is generally ineffective in controlling indoor air pollution.
The concentration of ozone would have to greatly exceed health standards to be effective in removing most indoor air contaminants. In the process of reacting with chemicals indoors, ozone can produce other chemicals that themselves can be irritating and corrosive.
Top of page
Recommendation
The public is advised to use proven methods of controlling indoor air pollution. These methods include eliminating or controlling pollutant sources, increasing outdoor air ventilation, and using proven methods of air cleaning.
Top of page
Additional Resources
Publications
The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality, EPA Document Number EPA 402-K-93-007. U.S. EPA, U.S. CPSC. April 1995. Indoor Air Facts No. 7.- Residential Air Cleaners, EPA Document Number EPA 20A-4-001. U.S. EPA. February 1990. Residential Air Cleaning Devices: A Summary of Available Information, EPA Document Number EPA 402-K-96-001. U.S. EPA. February 1990. Indoor Air Pollution: An Introduction for Health Professionals, EPA Document Number EPA 402-R-94-007. American Lung Association, EPA, CPSC, American Medical Association. Top of page
U.S. EPA's Indoor Air Quality Information Clearinghouse (IAQ INFO), PO Box 37133, Washington D.C. 20013-7133; by phone (800) 438-4318.
California Department of Health Services, Indoor Air Quality Program, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Suite G365/EHL, Richmond, CA 94804. DHS-IAQ Program Assistance Line: (510) 620-2874, Fax: (510) 620-2825
Federal Trade Commission , Consumer Response Center, (202) 326-3128.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington D.C. 20207; or call Consumer Hotline, English/Spanish: (800) 638-2772, Hearing/Speech Impaired: (800) 6388270.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) has developed an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-approved standard for portable air cleaners (ANSI/AHAM Standard AC-1-1988). This standard may be useful in estimating the effectiveness of portable air cleaners. Under this standard, room air cleaner effectiveness is rated by a clean air delivery rate (CADR) for each of three particle types in indoor air: tobacco smoke, dust, and pollen.
Only a limited number of air cleaners have been certified under this program at the present time. A complete listing of all current AHAM-certified room air cleaners and their CADRs can be obtained from CADR
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 402 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 872-5955 www.aham.org
AHAM also provides information on air cleaners on their AHAM-certified Clean Air Delivery Rate site at www.cadr.org
Al-Ahmady, Kaiss K. 1997. Indoor Ozone. Florida Journal of Environmental Health. June. pp. 8-12. American Lung Association. 1997. Residential Air Cleaning Devices: Types, Effectiveness, and Health Impact. Washington, D.C. January. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 1989. ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta. p. 12.5. Boeniger, Mark F. 1995. Use of Ozone Generating Devices to Improve Indoor Air Quality. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 56: 590-598. Dunston, N.C.; Spivak, S.M. 1997. A Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of Ozone on Post-Fire Volatile Organic Compounds. Journal of Applied Fire Science. 6(3): 231-242. Dyas, A.; Boughton, B.J.; Das, B.C. 1983. Ozone Killing Action Against Bacterial and Fungal Species; Microbiological Testing of a Domestic Ozone Generator. Journal of Clinical Pathology. 36:1102-1104. Esswein, Eric J.; Boeniger, Mark F. 1994. Effects of an Ozone-Generating Air-Purifying Device on Reducing Concentrations of Formaldehyde in Air. Applied Occupational Environmental Hygiene. 9(2):139-146. Foarde, K.; van Osdell, D.; and Steiber, R.1997. Investigation of Gas-Phase Ozone as a Potential Biocide. Applied Occupational Environmental Hygiene. 12(8): 535-542. Hayes, S.R. 1991. Use of an Indoor Air Quality Model (IAQM) to Estimate Indoor Ozone Levels. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association. 41:161-170. Pierce, Mark W.; Janczewski, Jolanda N.; Roethlisbergber, Brian; Pelton, Mike; and Kunstel, Kristen. 1996. Effectiveness of Auxiliary Air Cleaners in Reducing ETS Components in Offices. ASHRAE Journal. November. Salls, Carroll, M. 1927. The Ozone Fallacy in Garage Ventilation. The Journal of Industrial Hygiene. 9:12. December. Sawyer, W.A.; Beckwith, Helen I.; and Skolfield, Esther M. 1913. The Alleged Purification of Air By The Ozone Machine. Journal of the American Medical Association. November 13. Shaughnessy, Richard, J.; Levetin, Estelle; Blocker, Jean; and Sublette, Kerry L. 1994. Effectiveness of Portable Indoor Air Cleaners: Sensory Testing Results. Indoor Air. Journal of the International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate. 4:179-188. Shaughnessy, R.J.; and Oatman, L. 1991. The Use of Ozone Generators for the Control of Indoor Air Contaminants in an Occupied Environment. Proceedings of the ASHRAE Conference IAQ `91. Healthy Buildings. ASHRAE, Atlanta. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1995. Ozone Generators in Indoor Air Settings. Report prepared for the Office of Research and Development by Raymond Steiber. National Risk Management Research Laboratory. U.S. EPA. Research Triangle Park. EPA-600/R-95-154. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1996. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP Office; report nos. EPA/600/P-93/004aF-cF, 3v. NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-185582, PB96-185590 and PB96-185608. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1996. Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS Staff Paper. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NC. EPA-452/R-96-007. Weschler, Charles J.; Brauer, Michael; and Koutrakis, Petros. 1992a. Indoor Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide: A Potential Pathway to the Generation of Nitrate Radicals, Dinitrogen Pentaoxide, and Nitric Acid Indoors. Environmental Science and Technology. 26(1):179-184. Weschler, Charles J.; Hodgson Alfred T.; and Wooley, John D. 1992b. Indoor Chemistry: Ozone, Volatile Organic Compounds, and Carpets. Environmental Science and Technology. 26(12):2371-2377. Weschler, Charles J; Shields, Helen C. 1997a. Measurements of the Hydroxyl Radical in a Manipulated but Realistic Indoor Environment. Environmental Science and Technology. 31(12):3719-3722. Weschler, Charles J; Shields, Helen C. 1997b. Potential Reactions Among Indoor Pollutants. Atmospheric Environment. 31(21):3487-3495. Weschler, Charles J; and Shields, Helen C. 1996. Production of the Hydroxyl Radical in Indoor Air. Environmental Science and Technology. 30(11):3250-3268. Weschler, Charles J.; Shields, Helen, C.; and Naik, Datta V. 1989. Indoor Ozone Exposures. JAPCA Journal. 39(12):1562-1568. Weschler, Charles J.; Shields, Helen, C.; and Naik, Datta V. 1996. The Factors Influencing Indoor Ozone Levels at a Commercial Building in Southern California: More that a Year of Continuous Observations. Tropospheric Ozone. Air and Waste Management Association. Pittsburgh. Witheridge, William N. And Yaglou, Constantin P. 1939. Ozone in Ventilation--Its possibilities and Limitations. ASHRAE Transactions. 45: 509-522. Zhang, Junfeng and Lioy, Paul J. 1994. Ozone in Residential Air: Concentrations, I/O Ratios, Indoor Chemistry, and Exposures. Indoor Air. Journal of the International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate. 4:95-102. Top of page
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local NavigationIndoor Air Home
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA Home Privacy and Security Notice Contact Us Last updated on Thursday, August 9th, 2007.
Print As-Is
Posts: 4258 | From over there | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
sizzled
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1357
posted
Ozone Air ``Purifiers'' Are Like Smokestacks in the Livingroom California Cracks Down on Products; Ozone Causes Asthma and Other Lung Disease
It's a product that has frustrated the Lung Association of America, the Environmental Protection Agency and lung health experts for years: A so-called ``air purifier'' that pumps out ozone -- the same pollutant that government and industry have spent billions to prevent outdoors.
These ``purifiers'' are advertised as cleaners of the indoor air. But ozone is a lung irritant that can trigger asthma attacks and scar sensitive lung tissue. It is a major component of smog, and a slew of regulations are designed to limit the ozone-forming pollutants that come from tailpipes and smokestacks.
Yet, there is no certification or regulation of indoor air purifiers that advertise ozone as a beneficial part of the air. California is changing that by writing first-in-the-nation rules requiring certification of air purifiers, and any that emit substantial amounts of ozone will be pulled from the market.
For more information about ``air purifiers'' that use ozone, visit this EPA Web site.
More News � Global Warming Affecting Wine Vintages Worldwide A Little Deforestation Makes a Big Flood �
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times All Rights Reserved
Los Angeles Times
September 28, 2007 Friday Home Edition
CALIFORNIA; Metro Desk; Part B; Pg. 1
1283 words
State bans home ozone air purifiers; Air Resources Board says the regulation, which takes effect in 2009, is the first of its kind in the nation. Health risks are cited.
Janet Wilson, Times Staff Writer
The California Air Resources Board on Thursday banned popular in-home ozone air purifiers, saying studies have found that they can worsen conditions such as asthma that marketers claim they help to prevent.
The regulation, which the board said is the first of its kind in the nation, will require testing and certification of all types of air purifiers. Any that emit more than a tiny amount of ozone will have to be pulled from the California market.
An estimated 2% of the state's households have one of the so-called ozone air purifiers, according to air board staff research, and the staff estimated that more than 500,000 people had been exposed to levels of ozone above federally recognized health standards as a result. More than 2 million California residents have some sort of air purifier, and other types can be safe and effective, the air board staff said.
"This is a landmark decision," said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the Air Resources Board.
"State government needed to set up [its] own standards on air purifiers because many [marketers] indeed are deceiving the public," said former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, who sponsored a law requiring the board to rein in so-called ozone generators. "There are reports of ozone being generated in someone's living room . . . at levels equivalent to having a Stage 1 smog alert right in your own house."
The new regulation, which takes effect in 2009, will exempt industrial and commercial uses of ozone generators, as long as people are not present.
The machines deliberately inject ozone into a living room or bedroom, or directly into nasal passages via a personal breathing device worn around the neck. They have been marketed on the radio and over the Internet for years under brand names such as Living Air Purifier, Mountain Air or Fresh Air.
The companies also employ direct marketing, in which salespeople who say they are satisfied consumers go door-to-door or advertise the products to friends and colleagues, then earn a commission for each unit sold.
Many direct marketers spoke at the air board's public hearing Thursday in Diamond Bar. Most, however, identified themselves not as salespeople but as consumers who said their own health, that of asthmatic children, their aging parents and even depressed pets had been dramatically improved after use of ozone purifiers sold by EcoQuest, a Tennessee-based company.
"God gave humans these air purifiers, and you should not take away that gift," said Debra Perkins of Corona, weeping as she told how she felt the product had improved her mother's breathing.
Perkins said later that she was speaking not because she sells the devices, but because she believed so strongly as a registered nurse that they had helped her and her family. She said she first became a distributor after seeing them displayed at the Los Angeles County Fair. She could not afford the $700 price, but was told she could get them at reduced cost if she sold them.
Allen Johnston of EcoQuest said his company was not allowed under Food and Drug Administration laws to make claims that the product cured illnesses or eliminated germs of any kind, and it doesn't. But he said studies had shown that injecting some ozone into homes could reduce levels of germs.
"Ozone is both safe and effective, and widely endorsed by safety organizations," he said.
Such claims are false, said UC Irvine inhalation toxicologist Michael Kleinman. "Ozone is a toxic contaminant, and does cause significant adverse health impacts," he said.
"There are thousands of peer-review studies showing ozone is dangerous," said Bonnie Holmes-Gen of the American Lung Assn. of California, who for years led the drive for regulation.
Those studies have linked ozone exposure to increased asthma and other potentially deadly respiratory diseases, permanent lung damage and other health problems. Outdoor ozone produces smog when it reacts with sunlight.
But Johnston, of EcoQuest, said the studies used by the air board staff and conducted by scientists relied on outdoor ozone exposure, or testing conducted in sterile, small chambers that would automatically produce much higher levels of ozone than in a normal, larger home. After Thursday's unanimous vote by the board to ban high-ozone generators, he said, "I feel sad for the people of California."
Johnston said that his company would "of course comply" with the new regulation, and that it has other products that it will be able to sell here instead. He said California is the company's largest market, both because of its large population and its significant air pollution problems.
He said manufacturers could have done a better job of placing warning labels on devices advising the public not to set the level of the machine too high when anyone is in the room, but added that such limitations are spelled out in the owner's manual.
Sharper Image, another leading manufacturer and marketer of indoor air purifiers, has been working with the air board staff for more than a year to develop a new air purifier that will meet state standards, said Peggy Jenkins, head of the board's indoor air division.
Jenkins said her office routinely receives calls from frightened consumers who have experienced asthma attacks or other health problems that could have been caused by ozone air purifiers. Sharper Image did not return calls seeking comment.
There are safe and effective air purifiers, Jenkins said. The cheapest, and usually the most effective, are so-called HEPA devices also commonly used in hospitals. They do require maintenance, such as changing filters. Also sometimes effective are ionizers or electrostatic precipitators, which can trap dangerous particulates, but which also can emit ozone as a byproduct, usually at lower levels than those that will be banned under the new law.
But some board members said that no safe level of ground-level ozone has ever been identified, and that it made them uncomfortable to put certification labels on machines that emit even low levels. The atmospheric ozone layer, by contrast, is a necessary protective layer around the Earth.
Board members voted to require their staff to return to them with results of future research into indoor ozone exposure to determine if allowable levels should be set even lower.
Anyone caught selling the devices after a two-year phase-in period could be subject to fines starting at $1,000 a day. The board staff said that "sturdy" enforcement would be needed to track down products largely sold on the Internet or via word of mouth, but that it could be done.
"We'll go shopping," said Bart Croes, chief of the board's research division.
State air quality officials voted Thursday to ban the use of most ozone-generating air purifiers in homes.
Three kinds of air purifiers
* Mechanical filtration devices remove impurities from the air. They produce little or no ozone.
* Ionizers and electrostatic precipitators are electronic devices that may emit ozone as a byproduct, typically at low levels.
* Ozone generators are electronic devices that emit ozone at high levels. The California Air Resources Board says these should not be used in occupied spaces because they can emit unsafe concentrations of ozone.
Effects of ozone
* It is a primary component of smog.
* It can damage tissues in the human respiratory tract when breathed. Chronic exposure can result in permanent lung damage.
* It can worsen asthma symptoms.
* Chronic exposure may increase the risk of death in susceptible persons.
Copyright � 2007 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
1 Comment � Wow...we are too trusting in our products. Just look at all the reccalls. We need to be better consumers and have stronger laws
Comment by AS -- September 28, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Leave a comment Name (required)
Mail
Posts: 4258 | From over there | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
sizzled
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1357
posted
Air Purifiers
The Alpine Company offers an air purifier which does not utilize filters.� Instead, they claim that their purifier works by electrically charging the dust particles in the air and causing them to fall to the ground, or by producing �activated oxygen� or ozone to remove odors without the use of fragrances, according to http://www.air-purifiers-cleaners.com/springair-cleaners.htm. �Of course we must be skeptical of these claims because the company which is selling these filters has a self-interest in claiming the purifier�s effectiveness.�
The EPA provides a study of the health consequences and the actual effectiveness of ozone purifiers specifically at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html. �This site is probably more trustworthy because there is no special interest for the EPA to determine the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of ozone purifiers.� The site mentions that no federal government agency has approved ozone purifiers for use in occupied spaces, which they say is contrary to the suggestions of some of the vendors of these devices.� They go on to say that ozone can damage the lungs if inhaled and add that �Available scientific evidence shows that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone has little potential to remove indoor air contaminants�.� They list the same for odor causing chemicals, viruses, bacteria, mold, and other biological pollutants.�
At the end of this discussion they suggest that ionizers are commonly used to clean the air and are effective.� Staying with the EPA�s website, at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/residair.html, they discuss the pros and cons of ionizers when compared with other types of air filters (for example, they are found to be more effective against cigarette smoke but less effective without aid in removing larger dust particles), but the central point is that ionizers are effective as air purifiers.� In conclusion, the EPA�s objective investigation of the claims made by air purification vendors such as the Alpine Company
Posts: 4258 | From over there | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
sizzled
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1357
posted
Dangers of OZONE in Air Purifiers
Most recent update: 3/14/04
Disclaimer: All written material here was placed for informational, educational and drawing on free-speech purposes only. Sharon Eby, nor SunStar Solutions, nor inclusions/submissions from testimonials, websites, or other data are meant to be used as expert or professional advice, and I/we are not responsible any conclusions that you arrive at on your own. Do your own research! These are the opinions of the author(s) only, based on personal experience.
I REFUSE TO SELL OZONE-GENERATING GOODS TO UNSUSPECTING CUSTOMERS!
As a former dealer for ******** (name withheld because of a "scare letter" from their attorney! - shown below) products I am happy to say that I no longer sell the ozone-generating air purifier units (or any of them for that matter!) to unsuspecting customers. For cleaning up the air, eliminating mold, dust, pollen, etc. these types of systems are great, but no person should be around these when they are running! This is especially true for babies (or children) whose lungs are still developing! Also, anyone with lung problems such as chronic bronchitis, asthma, etc. should NEVER set foot in a room with an air purifier that puts out ozone, nor anyone else, in my opinion.
It's like the being-lashed-1,000-times-with-a-wet-noodle effect... a little here and a little there doesn't appear to bother you at first, but the constant every day use of these ozone-generating air purifiers will certainly have a dreaded and harmful (permanent!) effect on your lungs! Although the amount of ozone generated is minute and considered "safe," using our air purifier was enough to cause breathing problems, dry eyes and throat, and the feeling of me not being able to get enough oxygen during the night when we would have it on (setting on the lowest possible setting in at 400 sq. ft. - but the area we were "purifying" was 600 sq. ft., 1.5 times the recommended room area!). I would wake up at night GASPING for air! Because of this only happening when the air purifier was on, I did some checking. I have since found out about the dangers of ozone when breathed (unlike the health effects it supposedly creates when in contact with water/vapor such as with the ozone created from lightning during a rainstorm, etc. - please note that water vapor is NOT present near these air purification units! For safety's sake, due to electricity being involved, nor should it be either... kind of a catch-22).
The saddest thing to me was when I spoke in spring of 2003 with another potential ******** dealer (super nice lady but I will not name names even though we were both under the same person in our upline in this MLM company, ********) and she had mentioned the same thing to me, that they had a hard time breathing, thought the unit was faulty and had it replaced "just in case" only to discover that the new one caused the same effect on them (she and her husband). She told me this personally on email, and about her reservations concerning the ill-effects of the air purifiers. Unfortunately I did not think to keep her email, but to top it off, she was talked into becoming a dealer anyway (not under me) and then wound up selling these units to many customers who have no idea about the dangers of ozone! Nor do they realize the UNhealthy aspects of the positive ions (only negative ions are considered "healthy") that these air purifiers generate (4 negative ions for every 3 positive ions). To not inform customers of the truth about ozone and such... well.... In my own conscience, I simply CANNOT DO THAT! Therefore, I have chosen to not stay a dealer for ********. To choose money over people is not my style.
Before giving some information on ozone, I would like to give you a very real and personal testimonials from friends/colleagues of mine, including Dr. Gregory Hensley, who has been HARMED BY BREATHING OZONE (he is a scientist, mathematician and computer genius). Between myself, the ******** dealer above, and Dr. Hensley, etc. (not including others I MAY know but simply haven't asked yet to see) there are four of us just in my own small circle who have had negative reactions to ozone from water and air purification systems. How many more out there are having the same problems and not saying anything? It is only a matter of time before companies will be forced to alter their systems, or put warnings about the effects of ozone on their units, or just recall them altogether. It is, according to those "in the know", the long term use (even in small amounts) that causes irreversible damage to the lungs.
Read on...
TESTIMONIAL OF LUNG DAMAGE FROM OZONE
Anonymous (by request), from New Mexico 9/03
Clean air. Ozone was in the air purifier I got too, and I already have lung damage - it was truly awful.
Gregory Hensley, from Ohio 9/03
I was changing the molecular sieve that we use for water filtration and cracked its housing, and accidentally opened the valve for the the ozonation part of the water filtration process. The next thing I knew I was enveloped in a cloud of ozone. I immediately experienced lacrimation and difficulty breathing. Days later this permuted into a case of pleurisy and then finally pneumonia. The ozone is directly implicated in these events.
Then we purchased a ****** *** system from an independent vendor and placed it in our home after having a sewer pipe break that resulted from a fracture in the line. After exposure to that system my wife developed difficulty breathing and when we confronted the vendor we were told some big line about "toxins" in our home and the facts that we were unhealthy beforehand which was nonsense.
Both events resulted in serious health concerns.
Sharon, ozone is classified by the EPA as a severe pollutant. It's noxious and liable to damage mucus membranes of any person or animal near it. The fresh air is electrified air. It's been subjected to high voltage and is hyper-ionized. They make all these claims but do this, take a piece of raw meat and lay near it. Yes, it won't smell but look at the rapid and irreversible changes in the tissue. Oh, and another one, ozone is such a pollutant that anyone with asthma or breathing concerns should never go near it. Never. I'm proof of that one. I took my machine and cut it up and used the cord for another project and threw the rest away.
Sharon, the body likes balance. The negative ions and positive ions all break down into free radicals and without sufficient hydration or other mechanisms of cleansing, they stay in the body and become potential cancer sites. The nasty part? These (********) are the only folks that claim ozone is healthy. Contact your public library. (Unbiased) Ask them about Hawleys Condensed Chemical Dictionary. Ask about Ozone and the threshold limiting value which determines what the potential for poisoning is for ozone. It's lower than the output of that machine in any configuration. It will tarnish silver, gold, and aluminum instantly. They say that it cleans the room and makes a fine dust because a home is "dirty". No it's electrostatic precipitation. Meaning that it is the result of a chemical reaction. Clean rooms don't use ozone. They use filtration. Clean rooms don't use ozone for anything but to sterilize water. It's a sterilant and that includes us. Ick. Sharon, always remember, with me, science is first. People pay these folks to by their products wholesale. If the FDA heard the medical claims they made they'd be incarcerated. Be careful.
I have been good friends with Gregory Hensley for many years and remember when he told me about the "blisters in his lungs" and the great pain he suffered from the ozone damage. Rather than make claims on the dangers of breathing ozone I will allow the professionals and the rest of the authors of reports, etc. to do that here. BE INFORMED! Read the articles and pages below and EDUCATE YOURSELF before purchasing an air purifier that claims to generate ozone! And above all, don't take my word for this, and don't accept these few websites as the final authority.... check into it yourself FULLY before you decide what you believe!
UPDATE: Ozone Hazards CLICK HERE
A great site with ample evidences! Thanks to Ocampas for this link:
One last word about the theory behind using NATURAL contaminants in the environment (ones like dust, pollen, etc., NOT man-made pollutants such as smog, herbicides, pesticides, crop-dusting, etc.) to help make us stronger human beings. One could argue that ozone is "natural", and it is necessary for being in the "ozone layer" up in the sky and keeping the greenhouse effect in balance around the earth, but realize that up there is where ozone belongs... NOT here where we can breathe it! I remember reading once about how to get rid of allergies by eating local honey which is laced with the pollens of local flowers, etc. so as to ingest them and build up a natural immunity over time to what normally would cause the allergic reactions in the first place. This is a form of homeopathy where like cures like. People that are stung by bees more often develop an immunity to them. Same with snake bites (provided they start out small and don't shock their system too harshly so as to kill them - I don't recommend this by the way! It is just an example.) where people who are bitten a lot develop an immunity. Not sure if it is true or not but I also read many years ago that if a child is scratched by a cat early on they develop an immunity to their dander and don't become "allergic" to cats. The list goes on and on. By joining in nature MORE we develop the immunities necessary to live a happy and productive life without fear of sneezing or coughing at every little thing. Too much of anything is not a good thing, but sometimes a little here and there can make us stronger in the end.
So the saying goes... "WHAT DOESN'T KILL ME, MAKES ME STRONGER"
There is truth in that.
Resistance to our muscles makes them grow. We need to eat a little dirt as kids, to play in puddles in the rain, and to climb trees and even fall and scrape our knees sometimes. It's good for us, and it make us tolerant, not afraid of the "little hurts" in life, creates resiliency and builds character.
If a seedling is grown inside of a sheltered greenhouse and is therefore protected from the elements, and then suddenly is placed outside, it will wither and die. If it is taken out a little at a time to get used to the outside air, sun, and wind and rain, then it will grow stronger and thrive!
It is my personal belief that all the natural things (in normal every-day small doses/exposure) like germs and bacteria, micro-organisms and dirt, all the scraped knees and broken legs or accidents, and all the hard times we are sometimes subjected to in life in our relationships, in spiritual matters, and mental or emotional anguish, are all for a purpose to help us grow and become stronger and wiser. If it isn't "overkill" by giving more than us humans can take at once, or like the wet-noodle effect beating down upon us with no delays or mercy, then we can still say... If doesn't kill us, then it makes us stronger! Otherwise we might find ourselves as the overprotected seedlings thrown out into the world all at once, afraid of life so that we cannot handle what comes our way, and then we wither and die.
Which one are you?
..... Sharon
If you'd like to read the letter from ********'s Attorneys please scroll down.....
Disclaimer: All written material here was placed for informational, educational and drawing on free-speech purposes only. Sharon Eby, nor SunStar Solutions, nor inclusions/submissions from testimonials, websites, or other data are meant to be used as expert or professional advice, and I/we are not responsible any conclusions that you arrive at on your own. Do your own research! These are the opinions of the author(s) only, based on personal experience.
Here is an electronic copy of the "scare letter" I received telling me to remove information on my website. I have blacked out all names and information associated with their letter to avoid more conflict, however the rest is left intact for your reading pleasure. If you, the reader, would like to know what the name of the company is that sent this to me, and who it is that is promoting the ozone-generating air purifiers then please feel free to click here and I will gladly let you know! I'm sure a little research would also verify the name to you, on your own based on what information is provided on this webpage.
Notice the qualifiers in their linguistics on this letter below.... using terms like "IF legal action is necessary"... etc. while at the same time sending me a huge pile of papers to support their claims that ozone is safe, regardless of what the EPA says, and their customers, previous customers, and previous or current distributors. It is merely an attempt to have me remove their "good name" from this website in regards to ozone facts. They KNOW this information can hurt them! Please note the information that they are most "fearful" of in regards to the lung damage is the testimony from my friend Dr. Gregory Hensley. This website page was seen as a threat to them because I spoke the TRUTH about the dangers of ozone and it might've cost them some business; however, in allowing the ozone to continue to be delivered in their air purification units they are ultimately only costing themselves business and possible lawsuits by others due to permanent lung damage/scarring from excess use over time. This is my opinion. I place it here for you now, to read and determine for yourself what you think. Call it the rebel in me, or the refusal to buy into "systems", but I am not afraid to publish, on my own website, my opinions of what I believe to be the truth; nor will I back down from that right! Read on...
Note: Due to the extensive (2/3 of a ream long) material (trying to convince me that ozone is "OK") that was sent to me by the company there was not enough room on this website to place it all so I just included the letter itself. But it is obvious that they were bothered by the TRUE statements by my friend and colleague Dr. Gregory Hensley! Can't imagine why???
All names or addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, etc. of the company, it's associates, employees, attorneys, sellers, distributors, managers, business affiliates (minus the ones they reference for their own benefit) etc. have been removed/blacked-out in the letter. This letter is being published for educational purposes under the right to free speech.
Readers... my question is... why did I personally have such troubles breathing with their ozone generating air purification unit if ozone is "safe"? I couldn't breathe in the night BECAUSE of the machine being on it's lowest setting! Others I've spoken to have had the same problem. Period! I don't even suffer from allergies either. Before I got the air purifier I breathed fine, and after I quit using it I could again breathe fine. It was ONLY while using it that I suffered effects of feeling like I couldn't get enough oxygen in the night! Let's wake up to the fact that even low levels of ozone, over a period of time (my problems showed up instantly, by the way) CAN and DO affect some people, and can and inevitably WILL cause lung and tissue damage! This is not only my opinion, but my personal belief based on personal experience and research. No amount of threats by anyone can take away my right to say so!
Sharon Eby - 2/27/04
UPDATE!!!!!
I received another letter from the Attorney to which I responded. Both letters are below...
SHARON (EBY) CORNET'S RESPONSE:
More updates will follow as they become available.... but since I wrote that last letter I have not even heard a PEEP from them. Hhhmmm.... perhaps it was a scare tactic after all. Please keep watch in the news and in current health journals about this important topic and how these systems are now under scrutiny.
Remember the wet noodle effect!
Take the advice directly from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)!
If you, the reader, would like to know what the name of the company is that sent this to me, and who it is that is promoting the ozone-generating air purifiers then please feel free to click here and I will gladly let you know!
So much for freedom of speech eh? I believe in the protection of our rights!
CLICK HERE
Disclaimer: All written material here was placed for informational, educational and drawing on free-speech purposes only. Sharon Eby, nor SunStar Solutions, nor inclusions/submissions from testimonials, websites, or other data are meant to be used as expert or professional advice, and I/we are not responsible any conclusions that you arrive at on your own. Do your own research! These are the opinions of the author(s) only, based on personal experience.
lpkayak
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5230
posted
i didn't read all the other stuff...this may repeat something.
hopefully you can clean up the mold-google mold-busters for info.
i have had resp prob for a long time since i was working in sick building
i got chem sens from it
i have an old oreck air cleaner that i love and take with me everywhere-motels, frineds houses. if i sleep 8 hours with it i am so much better. less fungal sinus infects
but bad mold is real serious-don't mess around with it-esp if you have children
-------------------- Lyme? Its complicated. Educate yourself. Posts: 13712 | From new england | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
sizzled
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1357
posted
Q Overdosing on Ozone? I recently heard that certain air purifiers produce high ozone levels. Which are the ones to avoid? Which do you use? A Answer (Published 8/1/2006)
I recommend HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters to clear and clean indoor air. These devices work by forcing air through screens containing microscopic pores, which remove all but the tiniest airborne particulates. They do not emit ozone, an active form of oxygen that, at high concentrations, can irritate lungs and make breathing difficult, particularly for asthma patients.
Related Weil Products Dr. Weil on Healthy Aging for Allergies - If you suffer from allergies, your diet might be making your symptoms worse. Dr. Weil on Healthy Aging has recipes and information to help you lessen the discomforts of allergies - sign up for your free trial today. There are two other types of air purifiers. One type, the "ionic" purifiers, uses static charges to remove particles from the air. Some products draw the charged particles back to the unit. With others, the charged particles adhere to walls, floors, table tops and draperies, which can soil these surfaces. These purifiers also can emit some ozone. Of more concern is another type of air purifier that relies on a process called ozonolysis. These units emit much higher levels of ozone and should be avoided.
A study at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) published in the May, 2006, issue of the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association found that in small and poorly ventilated rooms the ozonolysis devices added to existing ozone levels, raising them to a point where indoor air becomes unhealthy. Researchers tested various air purifiers in homes, offices and cars. In some cases, the ozonolysis machines pushed ozone levels as high as 350 parts per billion. If measured outside, those levels would trigger a Stage 2 Smog Alert in southern California, something that hasn't happened there since 1988.
advertisement
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has branded as "misleading" manufacturer claims that ozone will render almost every chemical contaminant harmless. The EPA also noted that available scientific evidence shows that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone can do little to remove indoor air contaminants.
Incidentally, another recent study from California has found that many household cleaners and air fresheners may be unhealthy by virtue of the toxic pollutants they emit, particularly when ozone is present in indoor air. Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley looked at products containing ethylene-based glycol ethers classified by the EPA as hazardous air pollutants and those containing chemicals called terpenes, used in pine, lemon and orange oils as solvents or to provide scent. Some research shows that terpenes may react with ozone from air purifiers and office machines to make toxic compounds.
The researchers concluded that under ordinary circumstances exposure is unlikely to reach levels viewed as harmful. But they cautioned against cleaning with products containing these chemicals when ozone generating air purifiers are in use or when outdoor ozone levels are high.
Andrew Weil, M.D.
Do you use an air purifier? Click here to state your preference in our discussion groups. advertisement
Terms of Use About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Press Information Advertising Kit
Copyright � 2007 Weil Lifestyle, LLC Information on this web site is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for the advice provided by your physician or other healthcare professional. You should not use the information on this web site for diagnosing or treating a health problem or disease, or prescribing any medication or other treatment.
Posts: 4258 | From over there | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, sizzled! Where was this 3 yrs ago when I bought my air cleaner!?? OH! It was on the internet and I didn't do my homework!!!
Think I'll take off the ozone thingy!
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96222 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
MagicAcorn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8786
posted
My home office is in the basement. I have a dehumidifier and a HEPA filter I got at SEARS it is a Kenmore Progressive and I have been very happy with it.
-------------------- Posts: 1279 | From In hiding | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
sizzled
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1357
posted
MedlinePlus consumer health information
Study Type: Observational Study Design: Screening, Cross-Sectional, Defined Population, Prospective Study Official Title: The Effect of Low Level Ozone Exposure on Healthy Volunteers Further study details as provided by University of North Carolina: Total Enrollment: 20 Study start: June 2007; Expected completion: June 2009
Low levels of both endotoxin and O3 have been reported to prime airway responses for other stimuli, with a notable example being the immediate and late phase response to allergen. Likewise, epidemiological studies indicate that levels of O3 below the current air quality standards for ozone are still linked with exacerbation of respiratory tract disease. On a cellular level, both endotoxin and oxidants can prime inflammatory cells such that response to subsequently inhaled stimuli is enhanced. This has led to the idea that ozone may also enhance response to endotoxin and the reverse. As shown in our preliminary data, we have carefully examined the response to low levels of inhaled endotoxin and have found that a dose of 10,000 EU enhances the phagocytic function of macrophages, monocytes and PMNs and modifies the expression of cell surface receptors (CD11b, CD14), and alters IL-13 levels in sputum without causing PMN influx to the airway. This study is similar in design, but will evaluate the effects of ozone at a lower exposure level instead of endotoxin.
It has been thought that monocytes and macrophages did not mediate response to ozone because macrophages recovered from the airways of persons exposed to ozone had blunted responses to stimuli such as opsonized zymosan or other ligands, and in vitro, exposure of macrophages to ozone likewise renders them hypo-responsive to other stimuli, including endotoxin. There is general agreement that the airway response to endotoxin is mediated primarily by actions on macrophages and monocytes. However, monocytes undergo adaptation to endotoxin with previous challenge with endotoxin, and the chronic presence of endotoxin (i.e. in sepsis) also induces tolerance to the effect of additional exposure to endotoxin. Thus, suppression of monocyte/macrophage function by ozone may not be adequate evidence that these cells do not participate in ozone-induced airway inflammation.
It has also been argued that because ozone causes epithelial cells to generate mediators like IL-8 which is a potent chemoattractant for PMNs, the response to ozone was primarily orchestrated through these cells. However, there are data supporting a role for macrophages in response to ozone. Also, epithelial cells produce stress-induced endogenous ligands, many of which are known to be generated following exposure to ozone, which could interact with innate immune (e.g.CD14, TLR4), complement (e.g. CR3) or other receptors on airway mononuclear cells. An initial experiment by our group shows that ozone challenge of primary epithelial cell cultures (developed from nasal epithelial samplings of volunteers) yield supernatants which activate COX2 and induce IL-6 secretion from peripheral blood monocytes, indicating the potential for an O3-induced, epithelial-derived monocyte ligand. To approach the question of whether low level exposure to ozone modifies airway phagocyte biology (as determined primarily by cell surface marker expression, phagocyte function and endotoxin responsiveness), this study will be similar to the one detailed for endotoxin only volunteers are asked to undergo low level ozone exposure to determine if a priming dose can be identified that modifies monocyte biology but that is sub-threshold for inducing a neutrophil response in the airways.
Exposure to ozone as low as 0.12 ppm for 1 hour without exercise may prime response to allergen, yet is not an otherwise very effective dose for induction of inflammatory or lung function changes. 0.12 ppm O3 for 2 hours with 1 hour of intermittent exercise also does not yield airways inflammation but does result in generation of a salicylate product in volunteers dosed with aspirin which has been proposed as a marker of O3 exposure. Using these and similar studies as a guide, we will perform a study in which volunteers will undergo 0.12 ppm ozone exposure for 2 hours with moderate, intermittent exercise (to yield 35L/min ventilation for a total exercise duration of 1hr). We will examine sputum neutrophil levels (% PMNs and PMN/mg sputum), cell surface marker expression (CD11b, CD14) on sputum and blood inflammatory cells (monocytes, macrophages (sputum), phagocytosis and cytokine response to endotoxin stimulation, 6hr following exposure to ozone.
We will carry out an interim analysis after we have completed study in 6 volunteers to determine if we have identified a level of ozone that is likely to modify mononuclear cell function without significant neutrophilia. If 0.12 ppm of ozone for 2 hours appears to induce a priming response, no change in the PMN response and some modification of monocyte biology, we will continue with that dose. If we see an increase in PMNs, then we will refocus the protocol to challenge volunteers with 0.08 ppm O3 for 2 hours with moderate exercise. If there is no response at the macrophage level, then we would challenge volunteers with 0.2 ppm for 2 hours.
Multiple studies have linked ozone with increased morbidity and mortality. One possible explanation is decreased heart rate variability (HRV). In hospitalized patients, decreased HRV has been directly correlated with increased mortality under multiple conditions. Recent studies completed here have linked particulate matter to decreased HRV. In this study we will evaluate each subject's heart rate variability using ambulatory ECG monitoring.
Hypotheses
Low level ozone will prime airway macrophages/monocytes such that they will be more responsive to inflammatory stimuli, including endotoxin and opsonized zymosan. Low level ozone will enhance airway and blood monocyte and macrophage function, and induce some alterations in some cell surface markers. Eligibility Ages Eligible for Study: 18 Years - 40 Years, Genders Eligible for Study: Both Accepts Healthy Volunteers CriteriaInclusion Criteria:
Healthy Adult Nonsmoker Able to perform light exercise Exclusion Criteria:
Asthma active allergies chronic disease Location and Contact Information Please refer to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00468221 Martha Almond, RRT, RPFT 919-966-0759 [email protected]
Study chairs or principal investigators Bradford Harris, MD, Principal Investigator, University of North Carolina More Information Study ID Numbers: 07-0304; RO-1 ES012706; R82952201 Last Updated: May 1, 2007 Record first received: April 30, 2007 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00468221 Health Authority: United States: Food and Drug Administration ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on November 01, 2007
Posts: 4258 | From over there | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic