bakelite
Active member
The reason is cost cutting and convenience , ozone and ESP is half the overall cost of filters to industry , larger ones contain a tonne of carbon and last six months or less.
Foomar,
That is interesting and makes sense. I knew it has already been in use for various industries. I imagine the use of ozone to eliminate voc's etc. has a smaller "carbon footprint" versus using activated carbon.
this most definitely helps. i had read after your original post that the ozone did degrade the carbon, but the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide creation is important info to have.
that article does not mention amounts of those toxic chemicals created. aren't both of these in cigarette smoke as well?
so i don't know if the amounts are really damaging to humans in a living area. like i said i had this setup for years with no adverse affects to me, family members or pets.
the article does also say this about ozone...
with all of that said, in the future i will build unit in reverse order. carbon scrubber first and then ozone capture and clean box
thanks
GP, I would think that the level of CO2 and CO being generated would depend on the mount of voc's (in our case terpenes etc.) that are present in the air at the time of oxidation.
What would be optimal is to run the ozone scrubbed air through this stuff:
http://www.caruscorporation.com/content.cfm/carulite-200
It is a catalyst that converts O3 into O2.
I agree. The negative effects of ozone have been exaggerated in recent years, especially by the EPA. Hence all the hysteria over air cleaners that produce it. IMO if you limit the time that an ozone machine is on in a room, then you can minimize any deleterious effects that it may have on you.
-bakelite