An integrated protocol and rating system to assess the performance of portable air cleaners for residential indoor environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portable air cleaners (PACs) are widely used by consumers attempting to improve indoor air quality (IAQ), often with relatively little unbiased guidance for purchasing decisions. A new protocol for evaluating PAC performance in terms of: emissions and by-product formation, removal of airborne particles and VOCs, noise generation and energy consumption is presented. This paper describes the facilities, methods and evaluation approach and also proposes a PAC labelling system for consumer information purposes. A series of tests were conducted to evaluate the application of the protocol using 12 PACs incorporating single or hybrid technologies of filtration (HEPA, electrets, or sorption), ionization (ion generation, or plasma cluster), oxidation (ozone, or ultra-violet photocatalytic), electrostatic precipitation and ultra-violet germicidal irradiation. IAQ performance tests were performed in a 55m 3 stainless steel chamber while the acoustical tests were conducted in a reverberation chamber. The validated protocol can serve as a basis for a Canadian standard on residential PAC performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".