The home appliances we review in this issue are air purifiers that have slowly emerged in recent years, and we usually judge the quality of an air mostly from the detail page to compare their parameters. Although this contrast method is effective, it is not completely accurate, just like the mobile phone running score, the highest score is not necessarily the most comfortable to use. Today we will explain this matter clearly through the actual measurement of three domestic air purifiers.
The machines to be evaluated today are b-MOLA BM100, 352X86C, Philips ACC78, which are the most representative domestic mid-range air purifiers, so they are the most objective to evaluate horizontally.
Looking at the parameters, the solid-state CADR values of the three air purifiers are in order, Philips, 352, and b-MOLA. Gaseous CADR values are ranked as 352, Philips, b-MOLA. In the ranking of two types of parameters, b-MOLA prevails, and it looks like an unqualified "bad class student". Philips, whose parameter data is very good, is more like the "top student" in the class.
Is that true, not necessarily! CadR value does not fully represent the purification efficiency of the air purifier, this parameter considers the speed of air purifier purification in a short period of time, that is, the more fierce the fan, the greater the wind, the more air filtered, the higher the value.
And purifying the air is not only to see the temporary purification efficiency, nor is it greater than whose air volume, but more importantly, the air duct design should be reasonable to achieve more with less. Philips with the highest solid-state CADR value is not very ideal in the actual measurement, the efficiency of purifying PM2.5 for a long time is not high, because it is the design of the upper air, the air blown out by the air purifier is easy to fuse with the high-rise air, and the particulate matter that should have naturally landed on the ground can only stay in the air, resulting in the efficiency of the air purifier to purify PM2.5 is very low.
On the contrary, the b-MOLA effect of the side air outlet is the best, the air comes out from the side, does not disturb the high-level air, and the particles in the air fall to the ground and are absorbed and purified by the air inlet and then output, with the highest efficiency. The 352 is also similar to the side air outlet design, so the purification efficiency is better than Philips.
Compared with gaseous CADR, we placed three air purifiers in three corners of a room with the same formaldehyde concentration, and the best effect was b-MOLA, followed by 352, and finally Philips.
Why is this contrast happening? This and the air purifier's aldehyde removal technology is inseparable, b-MOLA has a special oxygen polylysis filter element to decompose gaseous pollutants, formaldehyde into the interior, the filler in the filter will be catalytic decomposition, and finally become carbon dioxide and water, the purification effect is thorough, the continuous purification ability is good, so the actual measurement results are also good. 352 also has multiple adsorption decomposition filters, and the decomposition of formaldehyde is also relatively thorough. Philips relies on activated carbon to adsorb formaldehyde, and the purification capacity of activated carbon will decrease after adsorption saturation, so the purification efficiency behind it will decline sharply.
summary
Through the above measurements, we will find that there is a great contrast between the actual experience of the air purifier and the number of paper production, the b-MOLA BM100, which was originally a "bad class student", has the best effect, while the Philips ACC78 with the highest parameters has ushered in Waterloo, and the performance is unsatisfactory. Therefore, before you buy an air purifier, it is best to look at more review articles and videos, so that you will understand more comprehensively.