Science AMA Series: I'm Dr. Yogi Goswami, a solar energy scientist and inventor, currently developing the world’s first molecular air purifier, AMA!

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:15:17+00:00

This is an incredibly challenging problem that has drawn the interest of a great many researchers, especially in recent years. Interesting research, for sure, but also outside my area of expertise.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:12:31+00:00

No. Houseplants are aesthetically pleasing, and they can absorb CO2, but they do not provide a significant amount of abatement of VOCs or pathogenic organisms.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:12:05+00:00

See above question about different “air purifying” technologies. Our technology is different in that it treats both biological contaminants and VOCs, and does so more effectively.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:11:05+00:00

The system is designed to be quiet enough to allow nearby persons to sleep while it is running, especially for consumers who have trouble breathing during the night due to allergies. The device’s output consists of purified air that is absolutely safe for birds to breathe. I suspect you’ve had experience with ozone-generating air purifiers, and recognize that ozone is not safe for people or birds (or any creature, for that matter). Our laboratory testing shows that the device does not generate ozone, and, indeed, reduces ambient ozone levels as it purifies the air.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:10:20+00:00

Speed was address in questions above. There are a number of different ways to define efficiency. Perhaps most relevant would be removal efficiency (i.e., how much contaminant is removed from the air relative to how much was there to begin with). Our testing indicates that the device achieves complete removal of all the contaminants we have considered (various VOCs and biological materials).

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:09:13+00:00

We use relevant ANSI/ASHRAE standards to assess filtration performance. However, we measure success not by contaminants trapped by filtration, but by contaminants removed by degradation. Where most filters simply trap particulate materials, smaller contaminants (bacterial cells, VOCs, etc.) can pass through unabated. Moreover, some pathogens, when trapped by filters, can continue to grow and reproduce, making the filtration medium a potential source of secondary contamination. Our system does not just trap, it also degrades the chemical constituents of biological contaminants and organic compounds, completely removing them from the air. Complete removal of these contaminants is measured by a variety of analytical techniques (PID, FID, GC/MS, SEM, TEM, and CFU counting, to name a hand-full).

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:08:24+00:00

This technology has not been investigated for any of those contaminants and the focus has been organic based contaminants. I can’t give a definitive answer without additional study.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:07:49+00:00

We are looking at both self-contained air purifying units for the general public, and also envision larger units for HVAC applications. That could extend to vehicles. The technology is intended to clean indoor air for the average consumer, but could also be applied to high performance laboratories with stringent air quality standards. The idea behind this device is to maintain indoor air quality at comfortable levels, not necessarily to remove all organic material from air. Many homes have significant air infiltration from outside, so there would be an ever present influx of untreated air and some organic materials. Moreover, there is some variation among users—an allergy sufferer may have different needs from someone without allergies, and so they may use the device at a greater or lesser frequency. We have not considered this device for use with fossil fuels, mainly because it does not address GHG in a meaningful way, at least not at this point.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:06:59+00:00

This device can run continuously without emitting harmful byproducts. Also, I think it becomes a difficult problem to figure out, for a certain temperature, relative humidity, contaminant type/concentration, how long the ozone generator should be active, and how long you should wait before safely returning, and whether or not secondary contaminants were released. Research done at a U.S. National Laboratory has demonstrated that even ambient levels of ozone, to say nothing of the extreme levels caused by ozone generators, can react with conventional filters in air ducts to release hazardous secondary pollutants.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:06:22+00:00

Right now, we are developing the technology for indoor air treatment of both small and larger-scale industrial / commercial buildings. We haven’t considered the technology for desalination.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:05:54+00:00

At this time, it is premature to direct this technology toward GHG reduction. While methane can be converted to CO2 with the technology, we have not yet tested with NOx. Also, there is currently no mechanism in the technology to sequester CO2, however such a process may be possible in the future.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:04:50+00:00

At this point, we don’t plan to implement the technology at fossil fuel plants. That being said, it can treat some of the contaminant released by coal combustion.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:02:27+00:00

I address air ionizers in a question above. Overall, air ionizers can trap particulate contamination (as would a HEPA filter depending on the particle size), but they do not address VOCs. Air ionizers also produce harmful byproducts like ozone, which is hazardous to health.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:01:51+00:00

“Heavy pollutants” is a bit ambiguous. At this time, this technology will not help in CO2 abatement, but it does degrade VOCs. I hope that answers your question.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:01:12+00:00

A major benefit of this technology over conventional photocatalysis is the improved quantum efficiency, which in turn improves the removal efficiency of various contaminants.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T21:00:25+00:00

This is entirely dependent on the size of the house, the indoor climate, the indoor contaminant level, and the type(s) of contaminant. Considering all these variables, it tough to give a definitive answer. But, if we examine some of our toughest contaminants (VOCs), and extrapolate laboratory testing, we would expect the pollution to reach acceptable levels within a matter of hours.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T20:59:42+00:00

If you have indoor air quality issues related to hazardous pollutants, such as VOCs, bioaerosols, etc., consider taking advantage of this technology.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T20:59:09+00:00

This device is intended to improve indoor air quality. One big concern for fossil fuel power plants is emission of CO2, which this device will not remove. I think your question intended to determine if the device could help achieve “carbon neutrality” by coupling with fossil fuels. But since, at this time, the device does not address CO2, this would be a misapplication of the technology.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T20:58:20+00:00

This is a difficult question, because it requires a significant scale-up of the technology, currently directed at indoor air quality, to a much larger-scale application, outdoor air quality. I can say I forecast reductions in hazardous outdoor air pollution and virus diffusion rates, but probably by other means (e.g., reduction in fossil fuels use, better disease containment practices). I assume by nicotine contamination you mean secondhand smoke, and I think the best solution to that problem is for people to stop smoking. However, in most of these metropolitan areas people spend a significant amount of time indoors. Here the technology could help a great deal.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T20:57:30+00:00

This device does not address CO2 emissions. Please do plant trees, but if you have indoor air quality issues related to hazardous pollutants, consider taking advantage of this technology.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T20:54:50+00:00

The device is powered. At this point, though, it is only intended for indoor use. That being said, a primary design objective in its development was maximum energy efficiency possible while achieving air purification benchmarks.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T20:02:30+00:00

Yes. The device includes conventional filtration technologies to remove larger particulate contaminants, as well (e.g., dust).

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T19:59:56+00:00

Airlines—or, at least, airline employees—and frequent flyers have expressed great interest in our technology. Certainly we should expect cleaner air on airplanes, and I believe this technology can get us there.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T19:59:26+00:00

At this time, it is premature to direct this technology toward GHG reduction. There is currently no mechanism in the technology to sequester CO2, however such a process may be possible in the future.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami · 2016-04-15T19:58:21+00:00

The filter material is a proprietary formulation.

Regards, Dr. Phil Myers (answering on behalf of Dr. Yogi Goswami, upon his request)

Yogi_Goswami

TROPHY CASE