Advanced Materials Research Online: 2012-07-26

ISSN: 1662-8985, Vols. 550-553, pp 607-615

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.550-553.607
© 2012 Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

Evaluation of the Nano-Confined Catalytic Oxidation Technology for Air

Purification and Odor Reduction
Amy Leung1,a and Ezra Kwok1,b
1
Dept. of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia,
2216 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4
a
amyoileung@gmail.com, bezra@chbe.ubc.ca

Keywords: Catalytic Oxidation, Zeolite, Odor Reduction, Air Purification.

Abstract. Air pollution has a significant impact of human health. As modern individuals spend
most of the day in tightly insulated buildings, there is a strong need for strategies to improve the
quality of indoor air. A number of air cleaning methods ranging from simple filtration to photonic
technologies have been used in commercial and residential air purifiers. Recently, a novel
technology called Nano-Confined Catalytic Oxidation (NCCO) has been developed. In this study,
the potential of NCCO versus two other commonly-used air purifiers to reduce odor nuisances
caused by ammonia, toluene and hydrogen sulfide is evaluated. Twenty volunteers are asked to
evaluate the odor levels before and after air purification, in a safe, controlled environment. The
changes in odorant concentrations are also measured. The findings suggest that the NCCO-based air
purifier outperforms the two other common residential air purifiers.

Introduction
The average North American spends roughly 90% of their time indoors [1], at home, in the office
or in recreational facilities. Over the past few decades, as energy conservation requirements have
driven the reduction of building ventilation rates, the health concerns associated with poor indoor
air quality (IAQ) have also become more prominent [2]. There are two main categories of air
contaminants: particulate matters (PM) and gaseous pollutants (GP) [3]. PM include a wide range of
microscopic particles (either solids, liquid droplets or a mixture of both) that are suspended in the
air. Typical indoor PM include dust, smoke, fumes, pollen, dander, dust mites, and various
microorganisms. Indoor air also contains hundreds of GP emitted from diverse sources, such as
building materials, paints, furnishing, cleaning agents, combustion appliances, and outdoor air
pollution [2-4]. Some contaminants are associated with offensive odors. Even at concentrations well
below the thresholds for respiratory irritation or toxicity, the odor nuisances associated with these
pollutants may cause nausea and various stress-induced illnesses [4,5].
The use of air cleaners to improve IAQ has grown steadily over the past few decades. Three out
of ten households in the United States were reported to own at least one type of air purifying device
[6]. The common methods for air cleaning include mechanical filtration, ultraviolet germicidal
irradiation (UVGI), ionization, electrostatic precipitation, sorption, ozone generation, and
photocatalytic oxidation (PCO) [3,7,8]. Most air cleaners use a combination of purification
strategies to enhance performance [3]. Recently, a novel technology called Nano-Confined
Catalytic Oxidation (NCCO) has also revealed tremendous potential for air purification [9-12]. The
objective of the current work is to conduct a preliminary human evaluation of the NCCO-based air
purifier performance with two other popular residential air purifiers in a small-scale head-to-head
odor test trial. In the next section, some of the commonly-used technologies are discussed briefly.
Subsequently, a detailed description of the study design and a statistical analysis of the
experimental data are presented.

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications, www.ttp.net. (ID: 130.203.136.75, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA-05/03/16,00:40:56)
608 Advances in Chemical Engineering II

Air Purification Technologies

Mechanical filtration. This removes pollutants by size exclusion as air is passed through fibrous
material. Various types of filters can be rated on the minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV)
scale, from 1 to 20, which reflect the efficiency for removing particles of specific sizes [3]. Low
efficiency filters are typically used as screens to prevent the accumulation of large particles on
downstream components of an air cleaner. Some devices also include high efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters (MERV ≥ 17), which trap more than 99.97% of airborne particles at 0.3 µm.
However, HEPA filters are ineffective for GP and can lead to an increase in airflow resistance [3].
Other drawbacks of this technology include deteriorating efficiency with extended use (due to
saturation) [8] and the potential emission of secondary pollutants due to chemical reactions or
microbial activity on used filters [7]. In the current evaluation, all mechanical filters are removed
from the air purifiers.
Sorption. In this gas-phase filtration technique, GP are bound to sorbents by physical
(physisorption) or chemical (chemisorption) processes [7]. Common sorbent materials include
activated carbon, activated alumina, silica gels, zeolites, synthetic polymers and clay minerals [3].
Different filters may show specificity towards certain types of molecules; for example, activated
carbon can remove many hydrocarbons, aldehydes and organic acids, but they are less effective for
the adsorption of carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and nitrogen oxide
[3]. There are several drawbacks of using sorption filters, including competitive adsorption between
target pollutants and other components in the air (e.g. water) and the potential generation of
secondary pollutants by chemical reactions between adsorbed species [7]. Most importantly, the
filters quickly become saturated and must be replaced regularly to avoid reemission of pollutants [8].
The high costs and frequent maintenance associated with this technology have motivated the
development of other methods to remove GP.
Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI). This method is intended for the sterilization of
biological pollutants. High energy UV light, typically emitted by low-pressure mercury vapor arc
lamps (253.7nm), cause nucleic acid damage and inhibit replication [13]. However, some pathogens
exhibit reduced susceptibility to UVGI due to the presence of protective coverings, such as cell
walls. The typical UV exposures that are provided by residential UVGI units are insufficient to
destroy most bacterial and fungal spores, as well as some viruses [3]. UVGI is also not expected to
target gaseous contaminants or non-biological particulates.
Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and ion generators (IGs). These technologies remove
pollutants by air ionization. There are various ways to generate ions; a typical method involves
applying a voltage between a sharp electrode and a plate [14]. Under sufficient voltage, an ionized
atmosphere is generated around the sharp point (corona effect). The polarity of the corona discharge
is determined by the polarity of the sharp electrode. Note that secondary pollutants such as ozone
(O3) and NOx are formed during corona discharge, which is a major disadvantage of ionizing air
cleaners [7].
In ESPs, airborne particulates are first charged by drawing air through the corona and then
removed by attraction toward oppositely charged collection plates. To maintain optimal
performance of these units, the collection plates must be cleaned periodically to remove buildup [3].
In contrast, IGs generally do not contain collection plates. Instead, ions are emitted into the
environment to charge airborne particles, which adhere to nearby surfaces (e.g. walls, ceiling, and
furniture) by electrostatic attraction [3]. Ion-induced aggregation may also form larger particles
with enhanced settling rates [15]. However, disruptions by activities such as walking or vacuuming
may re-suspend pollutants into the air [3].
 Advanced Materials Research Vols. 550-553 609

Some IGs emit bipolar ions. The Plasmacluster Ion (PCI) technology uses an alternating plasma
discharge to decompose and ionize water vapor and molecular oxygen [13]. The resulting H+ and
O2- ions become surrounded by water molecules, forming cluster ions that are attracted to airborne
particles. Positive and negative cluster ions in close proximity react chemically to form highly
reactive hydroxyl radicals (•OH), which extract H+ ions from the particle surface. The resulting
product is a water molecule that is released into the air. This technology is also thought to inactivate
various types of airborne pathogens (molds, bacteria and viruses) by damaging proteins of the cell
wall or other surface structures [13,16]. Ionizing air cleaners are generally not efficient for the
removal of GP [7].
Ozone generation. This refers to the intentional production and emission of ozone to achieve
oxidation of indoor pollutants. The oxidant is typically produced using UV light or corona
discharge mechanisms [3]. For many years, there have been a plethora of ozone generators in the
market that claim to convert airborne contaminants into carbon dioxide and water vapor [17]. The
manufacturers often assert that their devices are safe and effective for the destruction of harmful
gases, odors, pathogens and particulates. However, not many scientific evaluations have been found
to substantiate the device safety and effectiveness. The use of ozone generators for air purification
is highly discouraged [18]. Excessive ozone exposure may lead to decreased pulmonary function,
aggravation of asthma, throat irritation and chest pain [18]. When ozone concentration are
maintained within public health standards, the oxidation reaction with most common pollutants are
expected to proceed over months or years [18,19]. The subjective claims of air quality improvement
are usually attributable to temporary masking of odors by ozone [17]. Furthermore, the few
compounds that readily undergo gas-phase ozonation often produce toxic by-products [18,19].
These health concerns should also be considered when using devices that unintentionally produce
ozone (e.g. ion generators).
Photocatalytic oxidation. This method involves light activation of a photocatalyst in the
presence of oxygen and water, which generates oxidizing species for the breakdown of pollutants.
The catalytic material is generally a semiconducting metal oxide or sulfide, such as TiO2, ZnO,
ZrO2, WO3, and CdS [20]. For these substances, the threshold energy required for the excitation of
an electron from the valance band to the conduction band can be provided by incident photons with
wavelengths in the UV to visible range. Photoactivation generates electron (e-) and hole (h+) pairs in
the semiconductor, which migrate to the surface of the solid and lead to reduction and oxidation of
adsorbed molecules. Importantly, the oxidation of adsorbed water molecules forms hydroxyl
radicals (•OH) that initiate oxidative cascades; this may result in complete decomposition of organic
compounds into harmless products such as water and carbon dioxide [21]. Because PCO is not
intended to remove PM, it is usually employed in combination with other purification methods,
such as filtration or ionization. PCO is an area of vigorous research, as it has shown considerable
potential for the destruction of GP [20,21] and airborne pathogens [22,23].
Nano-confined catalytic oxidation (NCCO). This emerging air purification technique involves
the use of ozone in combination with zeolites and other related porous materials [11]. In contrast to
ozone generators, which directly release the toxic gas into the environment and are known to be
ineffective [17], NCCO greatly enhances the oxidation of contaminants while avoiding high
emission of ozone and harmful reaction intermediates [11,12]. Zeolites are crystalline solids with
uniformly-sized, nano-scale pores. They consist of a negatively-charged aluminosilicate framework
with loosely bound cations that maintain the charge balance [24]. A number of natural and synthetic
zeolites with varying chemical compositions have been exploited for different commercial
applications. As discussed above, zeolite filters can be used in air purification for the adsorption of
GP [3]. Interestingly, zeolites also have the ability to catalyze diverse reactions inside the nano-
sized pores [24]. NCCO is based on a catalytic ozonation mechanism. Ozone (O3) provided by an
upstream ozone generator is decomposed into molecular oxygen (O2) and active atomic oxygen (O*)
at acidic sites of the adsorbent [12]. GP that are adsorbed in the same pore as O* undergo catalytic
610 Advances in Chemical Engineering II

oxidation within the confined nano-cavity [10]. Previous studies show that reaction intermediates
remain in the adsorbent [11,12], while the smaller final products (such as carbon dioxide and water)
are generally released to regenerate the catalyst [10]. Although a portion of the target contaminant
may be adsorbed without undergoing decomposition, the efficiency of catalytic oxidation may be
promoted by increasing ozone concentration [11] or by introducing transition metals into the zeolite
structure by cation-exchange [9]. Practical applications of NCCO purification may require some
optimization of air-flow rate, humidity, initial pollutant and ozone concentrations, catalyst
composition, and other factors [9-12].

Experimental Methods
The main objective of this study was to evaluate an air purifier based on the NCCO technology.
A controlled laboratory experiment was performed to assess the odor reduction function of this
device with respect to two popular residential air cleaners, as well as a negative control. A total of
four study arms were included in the analysis.
Air purifiers. Details of the devices evaluated in this study are shown in Table 1. Although
activated carbon filtration is commonly used for odor reduction, purifiers based on this technology
were not included because the performance of sorbents quickly deteriorates with loading and was
not directly comparable to long-term odor control methods. Instead, two popular air cleaners based
on different technologies were chosen for comparison with the NCCO device. The first unit was a
plasmacluster ion (PCI) generator (IG-CL15A) from the leading consumer brand Sharp Electronics.
According to the manual, the unit is effective for the elimination of viruses, allergens, molds,
bacteria and odors. However, the mechanism of odor control is not evident since this model simply
emits bipolar ions into the environment; it does not include any other means of purification, such as
mechanical or gas-phase filtration systems. The second device, AirCare 30 from BioZone Scientific,
was selected for its use of photocatalytic oxidation, which is thought to be a promising technology
against GP. AirCare 30 uses a deep UV light source to induce photocatalytic oxidation (UV-PCO)
and decomposes compounds on a TiO2 photocatalyst. The UV source also directly sterilizes
pathogens by UVGI. Finally, the unit of interest was b-MOLA R3006. It includes an ionizer that
simultaneously generates ozone for NCCO and facilitates the removal of particles by electrostatic
means. Ozonation of target pollutants is catalyzed over a proprietary nanoporous material
containing transition metals.
Table 1. Details of the portable air cleaners evaluated in this study
Purification technology PCI UV-PCO NCCO
Brand Sharp Biozone b-MOLA
Model IG-CL15A AirCare 30 R3006
L x H x D [mm] 265 x 330 x 155 401 x 131 x 91 158 x 176 x 158
Air flow [m3/hr] 78 No data provided 10.2
2 *
Applicable floor area [m ] 15 48 (minimum) 10
*
Instead of applicable floor area, the UV-PCO device is specified for a minimum room size, depending on ventilation:
48m2 (no ventilation), 24m2 (1 air vents/hr), 7m2 (5 air vents/hr).
Odorants. Three common, but chemically diverse, odorants were chosen as test compounds for
this preliminary study: ammonia (NH3) exhibits a pungent, suffocating odor; toluene (C6H5CH3) is
described as having a sweet, pungent, benzene-like aroma; and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is
characterized by the stench of rotten eggs [25]. The air purifiers were evaluated according to the
perceived reduction of odors caused by each individual compound.
Concentration measurements. Although the main purpose of this study was to evaluate odor
control, the chemical concentrations were also determined before and after air purification using
calibrated gas detectors to help interpretation of the sensory test results. A multi-gas monitor
(MultiRAE Lite, PGM-6208) was used to determine the concentrations of ammonia (1 ppm
 Advanced Materials Research Vols. 550-553 611

resolution) and hydrogen sulfide (0.1 ppm resolution). Gastec detector tubes were also used to
confirm the measured values (No. 3L for ammonia, No. 4LT for hydrogen sulfide). Toluene is a
volatile organic compound (VOC) that was detected by a photo ionization detector (ppbRAE Plus,
PGM-7240), which monitored total VOC concentration (1 ppb resolution). Ozone levels (0.1 ppb
resolution) were determined using the Model 202 Ozone Monitor (2B Technologies).
Odor evaluations. Informed consent for olfactory observations was obtained from 20 volunteers
(12 males and 8 females). Subjects were excluded if they had acute or chronic sinusitis, current
allergic rhinitis, current upper respiratory tract infection, prior nasal or sinus surgery, a history of
seizure, or history of anosmia or hyposmia.
Double-blinded odor tests were performed in an airtight acrylic chamber (LWH: 1 x 1 x 1 m)
wrapped in an opaque material. To facilitate sensory assessments, a 3-inch hole with a sliding cover
was created on one wall. A wind tunnel (55 x 46 x 45 cm) maintaining a constant air velocity
around 3m/s was arranged in the test chamber; this was designed to reduce potential confounding
effects caused by different inherent flow rates of the three devices (Table 1). A heat lamp was
included in the test chamber to assist evaporation of the odorants (chamber ambient temperature =
26oC).
At the beginning of each experiment, a fixed amount of the test compound (ammonia, toluene, or
hydrogen sulfide) was introduced into the acrylic chamber via a syringe. With the operation of the
wind tunnel fan and heat lamp, uniform distribution was assumed after 30 minutes and initial
concentrations were determined for the odorant and ozone. Each volunteer was asked to sample the
air through a small opening of the test chamber and assign the perceived odor to the maximum
intensity on a scale of 1 to 5 (see Table 2). The test device (PCI, UV-PCO, or NCCO) was then
activated for 30 minutes within the wind tunnel and the residual odor was assessed again by the
volunteers. For the negative control, evaluations were performed after 30 minutes in the absence of
an air purifier. Subjects were asked to rate the odor intensity with respect to the pre-treatment level,
which was defined as a score of 5. At the end of the experiment, the final odorant and ozone
concentrations were determined.
Table 2. Relative odor intensity scale
Score * Description
1 No smell
2 Mild smell
3 Medium smell
4 Strong smell
5 Extreme smell
*
Relative odor intensity score is based on the pre-treatment intensity level (assigned a score of 5)
The above procedure was repeated for each of the four study arms (in random order) using the
same pollutant. Then, the acrylic chamber was ventilated and thoroughly cleaned before evaluations
with a new compound. The chemicals were tested in the following order: ammonia, toluene,
hydrogen sulfide. Twelve data sets were collected (4 study arms x 3 pollutants), each containing 20
odor ratings (one per subject). Results were analyzed using the Friedman’s test (nonparametric,
repeated measures ANOVA) with a Dunn’s post-test to compare between the study arms within
each odorant group. The concentration values were only provided to help interpretation of the
olfactory data and were not analyzed statistically.

Results
The results of the odor tests are summarized in Fig. 1. The “relative odor intensity” plotted on the
y-axis represents the level of odor perceived by the volunteers after purification if the pre-treatment
intensity is assigned a score of 5.
612 Advances in Chemical Engineering II

Ammonia. In the ammonia trials, the odor intensity is significantly reduced after 30 minutes of
NCCO purification with respect to the negative control (**, P < 0.01). In contrast, PCI shows
negligible effects. The average odor score for UV-PCO is slightly lower than the negative control,
but the difference is not statistically significant (P > 0.05). When the odor intensities for the three
devices are directly compared, results show that NCCO performs better than PCI (*, P < 0.05). The
ammonia concentrations (shown in Fig. 2a) support the findings of the sensory assessments. NCCO
produces an evident decrease in final pollutant concentration while the other purification methods
do not. Note that despite efforts to deliver a fixed amount of the test compound into the chamber,
the initial ammonia concentration for the UV-PCO experiment (46.8 ppm) is slightly lower than the
other study arms (62.4 – 70.2 ppm); this may affect the relative odor intensities perceived by the
subjects (see Discussions).

Fig. 1. Summary of odor test results.

Vertical bars show the mean ± SEM.
Group comparisons are performed
with Friedman’s ANOVA and post hoc
Dunn’s test (**P < 0.01; * P < 0.05).

Fig. 2. Initial and final concentrations

of odorants: (a) ammonia, (b) toluene,
and (c) hydrogen sulfide. Statistical
analyses not performed as replicate
readings were not obtained.

Toluene. When toluene is used as the contaminant, none of the air cleaners significantly
diminish odor levels compared to the negative control (Fig. 1). However, NCCO shows the lowest
mean odor score and is statistically different from UV-PCO treatment, which results in the strongest
odor rating (*, P < 0.05). Measurements of toluene concentration are generally consistent with the
olfactory assessments, as shown by the lower final pollutant level after NCCO purification (Fig. 2b);
however, the concentration data do not provide an evident explanation for the comparatively high
odor ratings recorded after UV-PCO.
Hydrogen sulfide. In the hydrogen sulfide experiment, no significant differences are found
between the odor intensities in the four treatment groups (Fig. 1). Although there is a modest
decline in hydrogen sulfide concentration after NCCO treatment (Fig. 2c), this is not reflected in the
sensory assessments. Note that the initial amount of hydrogen sulfide delivered during the NCCO
test is relatively high (0.9 ppm) compared to the other treatment arms (0.6 – 0.7 ppm).
 Advanced Materials Research Vols. 550-553 613

Ozone. The ozone concentrations were recorded before and after each air purification
experiment. Fig. 3 shows a graph of the final ozone concentrations recorded after operation of each
air cleaning device for 30 minutes. The initial ozone levels are similar in all cases, at approximately
0.0148 ± 0.0004 ppm (mean ± SEM), and is indicated by the dotted line in Fig. 3. The UV-PCO
unit consistently generates high levels of ozone (3.8 – 5.5 ppm) when operated under the current
experimental conditions. In contrast, the PCI device shows an anomalous increase in ozone during
the toluene experiment (1.1 ppm). Ozone emissions are not detectable when the NCCO-based
purifier is used.

Fig. 3. Ozone concentrations measured

during air purification tests. Vertical
bars show final ozone concentrations
after 30 minute operation of the
indicated devices. Dotted line
represents the mean initial ozone level
across all tests.

Discussions
Performance of the NCCO, PCI and UV-PCO air cleaners. The above results indicate that
odor control by the NCCO-based device compares favorably to the two other portable air cleaners
chosen for this study. In particular, only NCCO purification significantly diminishes the odor
caused by ammonia. It also generates the best odor rating in the toluene test, although it is not
statistically different from the negative control. Increasing the number of subjects in future studies
may provide sufficient power to detect a significant decline in toluene odor. Hydrogen sulfide
appears to be the most challenging odorant to decompose. This may be associated with catalyst
deactivation by its oxidation products [26,27]. Although the hydrogen sulfide odor is not
significantly decreased by any of the air purifiers, the NCCO-based air purifier reduces the actual
concentration of the compound by almost 50%.
PCI shows the worst performance amongst the tested air cleaners; it does not remove any of the
contaminants included in this study. Because PCI is mainly intended for the elimination of airborne
pathogens and PM [13], this is not a particularly surprising finding. This unit was included in this
study because the manufacturer claimed that it is effective for odor control without providing a
plausible mechanism of action. Contrary to the manufacturer’s claim, this device shows no evidence
that it can be used for odor reduction.
The UV-PCO air purifier did not effectively diminish odors in this study, even though the
technology was previously shown to decompose gaseous odorants [20,21]. There are many potential
explanations for this result, such as suboptimal reaction conditions or lower susceptibility of certain
chemicals toward UV-PCO. For instance, the photocatalytic oxidation rate of toluene is known to
be retarded in environments of both high and low humidity [21]. Similar issues also affect the
NCCO technology, as demonstrated by the need for elevated temperatures during the ozonation of
methane [11]. Thus, for a more extensive evaluation of diverse air purifiers, future studies should
test different classes of odorants at various temperatures and humidity levels. Deodorization may
also be monitored over longer time periods to investigate differences in air purification rates.
614 Advances in Chemical Engineering II

Subjectivity of sensory assessments. It is evident from this study that the chemical
decomposition of pollutants does not necessarily translate into reduced odor levels. Olfactory
assessments are affected by many factors, including the concentration of the stimulus, hedonic tone
(pleasantness) of the odor, and inter-individual variations in sensitivity. To complicate the situation,
an individual’s odor perception may fluctuate over time. On one hand, high-level exposures to some
stimuli may result in desensitization. Conversely, repeated encounters with an odorant may train an
individual and lead to enhanced acuity [4]. Some of these confounding effects can be minimized by
increasing the number of subjects, randomizing the odor test sequence, or avoiding repeated
evaluations by the same individual. Unfortunately, these measures substantially complicate the
study design and are beyond the scope of this investigation.
Impact of initial odorant concentrations. The initial concentration of the pollutant has a
substantial impact on the sensory assessment results. In this study, the average initial dose of
hydrogen sulfide is approximately 75 times greater than its odor detection threshold of 0.0094 ppm
[28]; this likely impairs detection of the modest concentration changes after NCCO purification.
The ability to resolve odor intensities may be enhanced by lowering the amount of the stimulant;
however, this should not be the main consideration when designing an odor test. Ultimately, the
concentration should be chosen to reflect the pollutant levels encountered in realistic environments,
which may vary depending on the application.
One caveat of this study is the fluctuations between the initial doses delivered for each treatment
arm. This is attributable to insufficient precision during manual syringe injection of the chemical
solutions into the test chamber. To reduce the effects of these variations, volunteers were asked to
give relative odor ratings with respect to the pre-treatment intensity levels. However, the data may
still be skewed if the initial concentration in a particular arm approaches the odor detection (or
saturation) threshold. Moreover, the performance of the purifiers is potentially affected by pollutant
levels. For instance, higher amounts of hydrogen sulfide oxidation products may exacerbate catalyst
deactivation in the UV-PCO and NCCO devices [26,27].
Ozone emissions from air cleaners. The ozone levels are measured before and after each air
purification experiment because ozone is recognized for its ability to mask various odors [17,18]. In
particular, previous studies showed that ammonia and hydrogen sulfide odors were obscured
without any indications of oxidation [17]. Under the conditions of this study, the UV-PCO device
consistently generates high ozone levels (3.8 – 5.5 ppm). However, this appears to have little impact
on the odor test results since the UV-PCO ratings are not significantly better than the negative
control. Remarkably, the NCCO device does not release noticeable levels of ozone, despite its
ozonation-dependent mechanism [9]. In contrast, the unintentional ozone generation by the PCI unit
is detected. It is unclear, however, why ozone levels are particularly high in the toluene experiment.
Aside from masking odors, ozone exposure also poses many health risks [17,18]. The
concentrations detected after UV-PCO operation are near the IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to
Life or Health) threshold of 5 ppm [28]. This is caused by using the device in the test chamber,
which is much smaller than the minimum room size specified by the manufacturer (48 m2). Because
many consumers may not carefully read and abide by the manufacturer’s guidelines, the associated
risks of ozone overexposure cannot be neglected. In comparison, the very low emission of ozone by
NCCO offers substantial safety benefits.

Conclusions
Health concerns associated with poor indoor air quality have prompted rapid developments in air
purification technologies over the past few decades. In this preliminary study, a device based on the
emerging NCCO technology shows better performance than two popular portable air purifiers
(using PCI and UV-PCO purification). Only the NCCO-based air purifier leads to substantial
reduction of the concentrations of ammonia, toluene, and hydrogen sulfide. The human odor
 Advanced Materials Research Vols. 550-553 615

evaluation also indicates that the NCCO air purifier is superior to the other two commonly-used air
purifiers in the reduction of ammonia and toluene odors. Despite the existence of some
experimental caveats, these results illustrate the high potential of NCCO for improving air quality.

Acknowledgements
Financial support by the UBC Charles A. Laszlo Chair in Biomedical Engineering and technical
support by Dr. Cathy Jim of RHT Limited are graciously appreciated and acknowledged.

References
[1] R. Dales, L. Liu, A.J. Wheeler and N.L. Gilbert: CMAJ Vol. 179 (2008), p.147-152
[2] A.P. Jones: Atmos Environ Vol. 33 (1999), p.4535-4564
[3] Information on http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/residair.html (Last accessed 12/28/2011)
[4] D. Shusterman: Arch Environ Health Vol. 47 (1992), p.76-87
[5] T. Yamamoto, M. Okubo, Y. Hung and R. Zhang, in: Advanced Air and Noise Pollution
Control, edited by L.K. Wang, N.C. Pereira and Y. Hung, volume 2 of Handbook of
Environmental Engineering, chapter 8, Humana Press (2005).
[6] R.J. Shaughnessy and R.G. Sextro: J Occup Environ Hyg Vol. 3 (2006), p.169-81
[7] Y. Zhang et al: Atmos Environ Vol. 45 (2011), p.4329-4343
[8] B. Guieysse et al: Biotechnol Adv Vol. 26 (2008), p.398-410
[9] T.S.C. Law, C. Chao, G.Y.W. Chan and A.K.Y. Law: Atmos Environ Vol. 37 (2003), p.5433-
5437
[10] T.S.C. Law, C.Y.H. Chao, G.Y.W. Chan and A.K.Y. Law: Indoor and Built Environment Vol.
13 (2004), p.45-51
[11] C.W. Kwong, C.Y.H. Chao, K.S. Hui and M.P. Wan: Atmos Environ Vol. 42 (2008), p.2300-
2311
[12] C.W. Kwong, C.Y.H. Chao, K.S. Hui and M.P. Wan: Environ Sci Technol Vol. 42 (2008),
p.8504-8509
[13] Z.D. Bolashikov and A.K. Melikov: Build Environ Vol. 44 (2009), p.1378-1385
[14] L.K. Wang, N.C. Pereira and Y. Hung, in: Air pollution control engineering, Humana Press,
Totowa, NJ (2004)
[15] A. Shiue and S. Hu: Build Environ Vol. 46 (2011), p.1537-1544
[16] K. Nishikawa and H. Nojima: Proc 30th IEEE Int Conf Plasma Science Abstracts (2003), p.331
[17] M.F. Boeniger: AIHA Journal Vol. 56 (1995), p.590-590
[18] Information on http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html (Last accessed 12/27/2011)
[19] R. Atkinson and W.P.L. Carter: Chem Rev Vol. 84 (1984), p.437-470
[20] D.T. Tompkins, B.J. Lawnicki, W.A. Zeltner and M.A. Anderson: ASHRAE Transactions Vol.
III (Part 2) (2005), p.60-84
[21] J. Zhao and X. Yang: Build Environ Vol. 38 (2003), p.645-654
[22] A. Pal, S.O. Pehkonen, L.E. Yu and M.B. Ray: J Photochem Photobiol A Vol. 186 (2007),
p.335-341
[23] A. Vohra, D.Y. Goswami, D.A. Deshpande and S.S. Block: Applied Catalysis B:
Environmental Vol. 64 (2006), p.57-65
[24] H. van Bekkum, E.M. Flanigen, P.A. Jacobs and J.C. Jansen, in: Introduction to zeolite science
and practice, 2nd edn, Elsevier, Amsterdam, NY (2001)
[25] Information on http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/default.html (Last accessed 12/31/2011)
[26] J. Lee et al: Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering Vol. 22 (2005), p.36-41
[27] S. Kataoka, E. Lee, M.I. Tejedor-Tejedor and M.A. Anderson: Applied Catalysis B:
Environmental Vol. 61 (2005), p.159-163
[28] Information on http://hazmap.nlm.nih.gov/index.html (Last accessed 12/31/2011)
Advances in Chemical Engineering II
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.550-553

Evaluation of the Nano-Confined Catalytic Oxidation Technology for Air Purification and Odor
Reduction
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.550-553.607

DOI References
[1] R. Dales, L. Liu, A.J. Wheeler and N.L. Gilbert: CMAJ Vol. 179 (2008), pp.147-152.
10.1503/cmaj.070359
[2] A.P. Jones: Atmos Environ Vol. 33 (1999), pp.4535-4564.
10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00272-1
[4] D. Shusterman: Arch Environ Health Vol. 47 (1992), pp.76-87.
10.1080/00039896.1992.9935948
[6] R.J. Shaughnessy and R.G. Sextro: J Occup Environ Hyg Vol. 3 (2006), pp.169-81.
10.1080/15459620600580129
[7] Y. Zhang et al: Atmos Environ Vol. 45 (2011), pp.4329-4343.
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.041
[8] B. Guieysse et al: Biotechnol Adv Vol. 26 (2008), pp.398-410.
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2008.03.005
[9] T.S.C. Law, C. Chao, G.Y.W. Chan and A.K.Y. Law: Atmos Environ Vol. 37 (2003), pp.5433-5437.
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.09.016
[10] T.S.C. Law, C.Y.H. Chao, G.Y.W. Chan and A.K.Y. Law: Indoor and Built Environment Vol. 13
(2004), pp.45-51.
10.1177/1420326X04035097
[11] C.W. Kwong, C.Y.H. Chao, K.S. Hui and M.P. Wan: Atmos Environ Vol. 42 (2008), pp.2300-2311.
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.12.030
[12] C.W. Kwong, C.Y.H. Chao, K.S. Hui and M.P. Wan: Environ Sci Technol Vol. 42 (2008), pp.8504-
8509.
10.1021/es801087f
[13] Z.D. Bolashikov and A.K. Melikov: Build Environ Vol. 44 (2009), pp.1378-1385.
10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.09.001
[14] L.K. Wang, N.C. Pereira and Y. Hung, in: Air pollution control engineering, Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
(2004).
10.1007/978-1-59259-778-9
[15] A. Shiue and S. Hu: Build Environ Vol. 46 (2011), pp.1537-1544.
10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.01.006
[17] M.F. Boeniger: AIHA Journal Vol. 56 (1995), pp.590-590.
10.1080/15428119591016827
[19] R. Atkinson and W.P.L. Carter: Chem Rev Vol. 84 (1984), pp.437-470.
10.1021/cr00063a002
[21] J. Zhao and X. Yang: Build Environ Vol. 38 (2003), pp.645-654.
10.1016/S0360-1323(02)00212-3
[22] A. Pal, S.O. Pehkonen, L.E. Yu and M.B. Ray: J Photochem Photobiol A Vol. 186 (2007), pp.335-341.
10.1016/j.jphotochem.2006.09.002
[23] A. Vohra, D.Y. Goswami, D.A. Deshpande and S.S. Block: Applied Catalysis B: Environmental Vol. 64
(2006), pp.57-65.
10.1016/j.apcatb.2005.10.025
[26] J. Lee et al: Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering Vol. 22 (2005), pp.36-41.
10.1007/BF02701459
[27] S. Kataoka, E. Lee, M.I. Tejedor-Tejedor and M.A. Anderson: Applied Catalysis B: Environmental Vol.
61 (2005), pp.159-163.
10.1016/j.apcatb.2005.04.018