|
 |
|
Which is the preferred technology
Bi-Polar Ionization vs. Ultraviolet Light |
The chart below facilitates an easy comparison of both technologies. UVC has been aggressively promoted in the commercial and residential sector  to control mold and bacteria in ducts and air handlers. However, the advertising fails to explain that UVC is a “line of sight” device. If the blue UVC light fails to shine on the airborne microorganism and transfer a given amount of radiant energy, it has 0% efficiency in killing microorganisms. As a result, UVC mounted downstream of a cooling coil is not capable of sanitizing deep within the coil. Conversely, bi-polar ionization is not a line of sight device. Ionization mounted upstream of a cooling coil travels down the duct cleaning the entire cooling coil and killing mold and bacteria along its path. Odors and gases produced from building furnishings, bacteria, mildew and mold are controlled in the process.
|
|
Bi-polar ionization has been used for over forty years. Bi-polar ionization is principally used in commercial and industrial applications such as hospitals, schools, waste water treatment plants, airports, and casinos.
|
|
Which is the Preferred Technology? |
| |
Bi-Polar Ionization |
Ultraviolet Light |
| Temperature Range |
0° F – 130° F |
55° F – 135° F |
| Air Velocity Limits |
100 fpm – 800 fpm |
< 500 fpm |
| Tube Life (hours) |
~32,000 |
~8,000 – 9,000 |
| Extended Operating Range |
Yes |
No - Line of sight |
| Zone Purification |
Yes |
No - Cooling coil only |
| Odor Control |
Yes |
No |
| Kills Bacteria |
Yes |
Yes |
| Deactivates Mold |
Yes |
Yes |
| Safe Operation |
Yes |
No - Retina damage/skin cancer |
| Easy Installation |
Yes |
No - Requires duct support |
| Extended Maintenance Cycle |
Yes - Annual cleaning with detergent |
No - Monthly cleaning with alcohol |
| Annual Operating Cost $/CFM |
|
|
Deteriorates Duct Insulation
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
» » Residential » » Bi-Polar Ionization vs. Ultraviolet Light 
