Air Purifier Performance Testing Detail

IQAir HealthPro ($699): The IQAir model was the top performer and removed 100% of the particles when measured at the air output and removed 98% of the particles in the room after running for 20 minutes. The IQAir uses only HEPA filters and performed equally well at each fan speed.>
Alen™ A350 ($399) and Alen™ A375UV ($499): Both Alen™ air purifier units removed 98% of the particles at the unit and 97% of the particles in the room. Both units use the same HEPA technology and the difference is the A375UV has a carbon filter plus 2 UV lamps. These two units perform as well as the more expensive units like IQAir and BlueAir in dust and pollen removal, but cost half as much. The other advantage to these units is the low filter replacement costs which is economical to own and operate.

BlueAir 601 ($599): The BlueAir 601 removed 98% of the particles measured at the unit and 96% of the particles in the room. This model uses a combination of ionization and HEPA-like filters. The filters are about half as dense as the IQAir filters however the ionization effect seems to compensate. The particle removal rate was lower at the higher fan speeds and this is likely due to the filters not being able to “catch” as many particles.
Alen™ T300 ($299) removed 93% of the particles at the unit. The unit comes with 2 Alen™ HEPA filters and a UV lamp for virus and bacteria control. The T300 was designed to offer a smaller foot print and to compete against the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze units. The primary advantage to the Sharper Image unit is the T300's particle removal performance, sleek design and quiet operation.
Alen™ T100 ($149): Alen™ T100 Desktop Air Purifier removed 84% of the particles at the unit. The air purifier comes with 1 HEPA filter and is designed for use on office desks or in a very small bedroom. For standard sized rooms we recommend the T300 to achieve sufficient air flow. Compared to the other Alen™ models this unit has less features (ie no filter replacement indicator, 3 fan speeds, no UV) and is a basic HEPA model.

Austin Air HealthMate ($449): The Austin Air Healthmate removed 84% of the particles when measured at the unit and 80% of the particles in the room. The HealthMate uses a cylinder shaped HEPA filter and also contains carbon for odor removal, although we did not test for odor removal in our study.
Whirlpool AP510: The Whirlpool AP510 air purifier removed 95% of the particles at the unit and 70% of the particles in the room. This unit was relatively quiet on the high fan speed setting due to a large amount of Styrofoam around the fan. The AP510 moves a lot of air and scores well on the CADR rating however we were disappointed with such a low performance in the room test. This model is not recommended for odor removal. The exhaust opening is quite large and we are concerned that someone with a small hand could touch the fan blades during operation. This is not a very attractive unit and may not blend in well with the décor in a bedroom.
Friedrich C-90B ($499): The Friedrich C-90A removed 68% of the particles when measured at the unit and 90% in the room. The C-90A uses electrostatic plates to charge and catch the particles as they pass through. At the higher fan speeds the performance was worse and we attribute this to the air moving too quickly for the particles to attach to the plates.
Hunter 30756 Permalife ($249):The Hunter 756 tower air purifier removed 70% of the particles from the test room. We found the controls for this product to be confusing – not intuitive. For example, when the turbo button is pressed the unit runs at a high speed for a period of time and then changes to a lower fan speed. The filter is not a true HEPA and does not fit tightly within the unit so some air by-passes the filter resulting in diminished performance in particle removal. We do not recommend this model for odor removal.
Oreck XL Pro Air Purifier ($349): The Oreck air purifier was one of the worst performing unit of those that we tested, in that it removed 33% of the particles at the unit and 45% in the room. This is similar to the Friedrich C-90A in technology, only smaller and more attractive. It had the same issue as the C-90A on the higher speeds in that fewer particles were being trapped in the unit. Also, it appears to emit a small amount of ozone and one of our employees complained about an odor and had a headache when the unit was run.
Oreck XL Tower ($699.95): The Oreck XL Tower air purifier removed 83% at the unit and 25% from the test room. The primary filtration is the Truman Cell which is a bank of electrostatic plates that require cleaning every two to four weeks or more frequently if snapping sound is present. This model is much my noisy than the previous Oreck models. The performance has improved compared to Oreck’s older models but is still below average. This model is relatively heavy to lift and we found it not to be as attractive as other tower models. The odor filter is quite small and does not appear to contain activated carbon for odor absorption.
NeoAir Enviro ($199): The NeoAir Enviro air purifier removed 68% at the unit and 12% of the particles from the test room. The unit operates quietly however the fan speed is low and the filter surface area is small which means the coverage area is small. The controls were intuitive and the filter replacement was easy. The filter is very small both in surface area and depth and does not appear to be a true HEPA. We do not recommend this model for odor removal.
Sharper Image Quadra Ionic Breeze Air Purifier ($350): The Sharper Image air purifier was the worst performing unit we tested, in that it only removed 30% of the particles at the unit and 5% in the room - we were generous with the 5%. We even tested this unit beyond our standard 20 minute duration and extended it for an entire day. This unit still didn't remove any significant particles from the room. We did not see a layer of dust on the electrostatic plates during our test.
Edenpure Air Purifier : The Edenpure Area Model air purifier removed 8% of the particles from the test room and 10% at the unit itself. The unit operates fairly quietly however the fan speed is very low and the openings where the air passes through the unit are small which translates into very little air flow. The controls were intuitive and the filter replacement was easy. The filter is very small both in surface area and depth and does not appear to be a true HEPA. We do not recommend this model for odor removal. This model has an ozone setting which we do not recommend as the EPA has discouraged the use of this technology. In addition, the unit we tested did not have an UL or ETL label which is a safety requirement for electrical appliances sold to the US.

Login Your Account Shopping Cart
Talk to an Expert: 800-334-1494 Mon-Fri 8-5pm Sat 9-5pm CT