Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

OVERVIEW: Overall, I cannot recommend this as a general purpose air purifier. It could potentially be applicable as a purifier targeted towards VOCs, but I do not have the proper instrumentation to make an accurate determination as to the effectiveness in this aspect. From all my research, this company/product feels like more of a marketing/advertising company than a science company, as they try to advertise. A lot of their "scientific" papers read more like advertising pages, and lack significant scientific rigor. The air purifier has an Apple-like feel to it (from unboxing through setup through usage), but without the concomitant technological innovation that Apple is founded on. This review is quite long, but I have tried to group it into sections so that you can skip around and read only the sections relevant to you. I am an Amazon Vine reviewer, and try to include as much information in my reviews as I can, especially on items like this. I leave it up to the reader to determine which sections they would like to take the time to read. If you find portions of this review helpful, I would appreciate if you could mark it as such. Also, note that this review was too long for Amazon's system, so some parts of the review are contained in the comments section. SCIENCE: The Molekule's "golden goose" is something they call "PECO", which stands for Photo Electrochemical Oxidation. It's claimed to be an update of a decades-old technology called Photocatalytic oxidation (PCO). PCO uses UV light and a catalyst (frequently TiO2) to generate free radicals that lead to oxidation and destruction of some contaminants. However, it didn't work all that well for air purification, and could generate toxic byproducts. The PECO technology claims to update the PCO technology by using a new photocatalyst that has the capacity to separate the electrons from the positive "holes" formed by the UV photons reacting with the catalyst. The Molekule company has been very secretive about what their "revolutionary" photocatalyst actually is. In the older PCO reaction, it is commonly titanium dioxide (TiO2). I was curious, so I used an XRF analyzer on the interior of the PECO filter element (where the photocatalyst should be). Do note that I am using a handheld analyzer (not as accurate as a lab-grade bench analyzer) and I couldn't get the sampling window right up against the filter material because the PECO filter opening wasn't wide enough. Also note that the XRF analyzer I used (Niton XL2 800) is only rated for the analytical range from Sulfur through Uranium. As such, anything with an atomic number below 16 (for Sulfur) will show up as Aluminum, as this is geared towards metal analysis. From this analysis, I found the major quantifiable element present to be Titanium. I believe most of the "Aluminum" signal came from the filter material. However, I am happy to be corrected by any readers who are experts in XRF. This leads me to believe that the catalyst they are using is probably still just TiO2, possibly doped with some sort of nanoparticles that serve as electron sinks. The scientist behind the "revolutionary" PECO technology is claimed to be Dr. Yogi Goswami, a founder of the company. If you search this person on Pubmed, you will find only six publications (searching for both Yogi and Dharendra Goswami, the two names this person goes by), only one of which has a significant relation to the PECO technology. In fact, if you look through the "seminal" papers on the PECO technology, as described by the white papers referenced on the actual Molekule website, you will find most of these papers from the late 1990s and early 2000s were published in such low-impact journals that they were not even trustworthy enough to be indexed by PubMed. Searching through some of the earlier publications by Goswami gives further credence to the notion that the "revolutionary" PECO technology is probably just TiO2, possibly with an extra electron sink additive. All the early "seminal" papers on PECO are really just testing of TiO2 catalysts in various conditions, or reviews of the material in relation to PCO. Also worth noting is that Goswami is NOT the first person to discuss TiO2 as a catalyst for this type of reaction -- this has been discussed since the 1970s, and I believe was first introduced by a Japanese chemist named Akira Fujishima (although I am happy to be fact-checked/corrected by any readers -- please leave comments below!). PARTICLE FILTRATION: All the following tests were conducted in my living room, which is about 2,000 cubic feet in volume. It's not a lab-controlled chamber, but probably good enough to give a relative indication about which air purifier performs best. I first took a baseline measurement after I had my standard air filter (AirMega 400S) running on "smart" mode. The AirMega filters are used and overdue for replacement. I then lit a match and let it fully burn. I waited 5 mins. for the smoke particles to evenly distribute around my room, then took another measurement (pre-filtration). I then used either the AirMega 400S running at a speed of 4, or the Molekule Air Pro (with brand new filters) at a speed of 4 for 10 minutes. I chose these specific speeds to represent the maximum speed I would be audibly comfortable running these purifiers. The AirMega at max speed (speed setting 4) is the same SPL as the Molekule at a speed setting of 4 (both around 64 dBa), although the Molekule has a slightly more annoying tonality. At these speed settings, I am still able to concentrate on other tasks -- anything higher, and the Molekule dominates my thought process and I can't concentrate. I used a Lighthouse 5016 with a sample time of 30 seconds to measure the particle counts for these tests. The results: Baseline (before match burning): Record #29, total particles detected: 1464 AirMega 400S: 0 min (after match burning, before filtration): Record #30, total particles detected: 17263 10 min (after match burning, after filtration): Record #31, total particles detected: 6082 Reduction in total particle count: 65% Molekule Air Pro: 0 min (after match burning, before filtration): Record #32, total particles detected: 12696 10 min (after match burning, after filtration): Record #33, total particles detected: 6389 Reduction in total particle count: 50% In my testing, the Air Pro performed significantly worse than the AirMega (which has used filters due for replacement), while outputting the same SPL (but at a more noticeable sound frequency) and using a similar amount of power. The Molekule is definitely not the best choice for particle filtration. This sentiment is confirmed by a lot of other third-party testers, including Consumer Reports, Wirecutter, etc. VOC, BACTERIA, VIRUS REDUCTION: This is the area where the Molekule has the potential to outshine the competition. Although the particle filtration is pretty crappy, the VOC filtration has the capability of being superior to competitors. The "standard" way of dealing with VOC filtration is to use activated carbon, which does a very good job of absorbing gases, odors, etc. However, the key word is "absorb". Once the activated carbon in a standard filter has absorbed a given amount of contaminants, it can't hold anything more and does not filter any longer. On a theoretical level, at least, the Molekule does not need to have the PECO part of the filter replaced (more on that below) and will keep on actively destroying the contaminants. One of the issues I have with the Molekule is the lack of scientific rigor in their advertising material. They introduce a new version of an old technology (which might not actually be all that different -- reference the Science section), then claim it as "revolutionary" without doing direct comparisons against the current standard for VOC purification (activated carbon filtration). Why is this? Does their technology not work as well? If so, that's fine, they just need to state it and play to their strengths (don't need to change the filter as often, etc.). However, they instead neglect to do direct comparisons and instead force a strict filter change regimen just like the current activated carbon filters, and engage in sensational marketing tactics. In fact, they were recently essentially reprimanded by a division of the BBB called the National Advertising Division, which found a lot of their marketing claims were quite misleading. Unfortunately, I don't have a GC/MS or anything like that to test how well the Molekule purifier works for VOCs and other gaseous contaminants. All I can provide is subjective data. The Molekule seems to work about as well as my AirMega 400S did with new filters, in regards to odor reduction. The AirMega I have has noticeably degraded performance in regards to odor filtration now that the filters are due for replacement, which highlights one of the great weaknesses of activated carbon (the necessity of frequent filter changes). BUILD QUALITY: The unit seems to be built well, with good quality materials and a relatively solid construction. More details are presented in the comments section. FILTER GASKETS: One area I am a little bit concerned about (in terms of longevity) are the filter gaskets. There are two gaskets, one that seals against the bottom of the filter and one that seals against the top. These gaskets are absolutely critical to the proper functioning of this air filter. They create the seal between the negative pressure and positive pressure side of the filter element. Without a good seal from these gaskets, dirty unfiltered air would just flow right around the filter element and not be sanitized. The bottom gasket is a piece of rubber-like material, but the top gasket is what seems to be a layer of foam underneath a plastic-like coating. The top gasket is the one I am concerned could loose proper sealing ability with time. After extended periods of compression, foam materials do sometimes tend to loose their ability to seal gaps properly. I am not sure why they did not use a piece of weather-stripping like rubber material for this gasket, like they did for the bottom gasket. Moreover, I am not sure why they decided to make the gaskets integral to the filter housing, instead of contained on the disposable filter element itself. It would make the most sense to me to have the consumable gaskets as part of the filter element that gets replaced regularly. At the retail price of $130 a year for replacement filters (and that's with their discounted auto-refill package), I think they have enough profit margin to spare a couple dollars by including the gasket as a part of the filter. NOISE AND AIRFLOW: This air filter is really quite noisy in the higher filter settings. On the Molekule website, it lists a rating of 64dBa on the highest setting. I have no idea how they came to that statistic, as they do not explain their testing methodology at all (quite ironic for a company that heavily advertises their "science" focus). I used an SPL meter (albeit a somewhat older model that is not calibrated or certified, but it should give an accurate representation of relative levels) to compare this Molekule purifier with my current air purifier, an AirMega 400S. I used "A" weighting on the meter, with a fast response time, and set the meter at 12 inches from the center of the air outlet on both air filters. At the highest speed setting on the AirMega, I registered 64dBa. At the highest speed setting on the Molekule, I registered 78dBa. Keep in mind that decibel is a logarithmic scale, and an increase of 10dB is generally considered to represent a doubling of perceived sound level. Worth noting, on the Molekule a speed setting of 4 out of 6 gives an SPL of 63dBa, which is quite close the highest setting on the AirMega. In terms of noise, another factor that is very important is the tone of the noise. In my opinon, a lower pitched wind "whoosh" sound fades into the background more than a higher pitched fan "whine". The Molekule air purifier has a relatively small fan and a small outlet. To achieve an adequate volumetric air flow, the air velocity must necessarily be very fast. This creates more of a noticeable "whine" noise as opposed to the wind-like "whoosh" of the AirMega. For people in IT, the Molekule on high speed actually sounds remarkably similar to my 1U rack-mount server with 40mm fans after it spools the fans up when I remove the cover for cleaning! For those not in IT, that means it's freaking loud, and with a very obtrusive sound signature. Due to the noise profile of this Molekule, the fan speed setting of "4" (that generates about the same SPL as the AirMega on "High") actually sounds FAR more annoying than the AirMega. The comparisons of the two air purifiers above (AirMega and Molekule) might not be apples-to-apples if they are not moving the same amount of air. Unfortunately, I could find no indications in the specs of the Molekule as to the rated airflow of the unit. All it says it the unit is rated for 1000 sq. ft. with 8 ft. high ceilings. Is this rating for 1 air change per hour? 2? or 4? No mention at all -- again, kind of ironic for a company claiming to be so founded on "science". The AirMega does not explicitly list air flow, but you can calculate it because they actually specify that the unit is rated for 1560 sq. ft. with 8 ft. high ceilings at 2 air changes per hour. This equates to 416 cfm, which I suspect is where the "400" model number came from. If you use the same calculation for the Molekule (8 ft. high ceilings and 2 air changes per hour), which might not even be accurate because the company does not specify, we get about 266 cfm. So, the Molekule on the highest fan speed setting does not come anywhere near the air flow of the AirMega on high, even though it's far more than twice as loud, with a far more obtrusive frequency profile... LIGHTS AND DARK MODE: Most of this section is contained in the comments section. Suffice it to say it's quite disappointing that the unit emits a very obvious blue light out of the grill if you want to use the PECO technology. FILTER CHANGE FREQUENCY: This section is contained in the comments section. As a brief summary, Molekule wants you to change these filters every 6 months, and I am not really sure why this frequent changing should be necessary with the PECO technology. Also, there is a notable LACK of a pre-filter. FORCED FILTER CHANGE: One thing that worries me from the user manual is the air filter changing process. It looks too simple. Let me elaborate on that... according to the manual, you just put in a new filter, and there is no filter reset button/menu on the air purifier. If that is correct, the air filter "senses" you installed a new air filter and automatically takes that into account for the filter life indicator. That sounds like a nice convenience feature, until you read on and find out that the unit will actually REFUSE to run properly with a used filter until you replace it (see photo of the relevant part of the manual). So, if you do not change the filter strictly on the schedule that the manufacturer insists, your ultra expensive air purifier will no longer even attempt to filter the air for you. This really rubs me the wrong way, given what I have discussed already regarding the filter change frequency. Also, what happens if the company goes bankrupt and no longer makes replacement filters? Your unit is now 100% worthless. I suspect that there is an RFID chip inside the filter element that contains a unique ID, and this is how the Molekule knows when you replace a filter. I will have to do some more investigating to determine if this is indeed the case, and whether the "filter life" indication is stored on the filter RFID chip or on a database inside the Molekule purifier. Depending on how the RFID chip is configured, it could be possible to re-write it with new data and re-use filters. I will update this review if I get a chance to study this some more. CLINICAL USE: Given the current pandemic situation, Molekule included a handout regarding the use of this air purifier in a clinical setting. In this handout, they recommend replacing the filter element monthly instead of every six months, as in a residential setting. That will get extremely expensive very quickly. That also has me concerned about the ongoing effectiveness of the unit in a residential setting. With this recommendation, Molekule is implying that the unit does not actually inactivate airborne viruses very well after one month of use. However, the main headlines for this handout only mentioned killing of virus by UV radiation, without mentioning their "special" PECO process. The conspiracy theorist naturally should wonder whether the majority of virus and bacteria destruction is happening from the UV radiation instead of the PECO process, and if they were forced to admit this in their main statement to the FDA. In fact, there have been other scientific studies on PCO that demonstrated the majority of viral and bacterial inactivation was simply due to the UV radiation and not the generation of free radicals. OPTIMAL USAGE SCENARIOS: Most of this section is in the comments section. But as a brief summary, use this as a supplemental VOC filter. Keep it on one of the lower speed settings, and maintain a relative humidity of 50%. ALTERNATIVES: If you would like to have this PECO technology in your home, but do not want to pay the very high price of admission into the Molekule club, I have an alternative for you. Purchase an affordable, but good quality HEPA filter for particle filtration (Wirecutter and consumer reports both recommend good models). To cover the PECO aspect, do the following (this will come across as facetious -- it is only meant to be slightly sarcastic): 1.) Get a bucket of bright white paint (most white paint uses TiO2 as the pigment) 2.) mix some carbon black into the white paint to serve as an electron sink (activated carbon would probably work as well) 3.) paint your wall with this revolutionary photocatalyst material 4.) point a few blacklights at your wall 5.) point a standard fan at your wall to get some airflow across it Obviously, I have not done this, I cannot verify if it works, etc. etc. POWER USAGE: All readings listed were taken with a Kil-A-Watt device. It's not the epitome of accuracy, but good enough for most purposes. I tested a couple (but not all -- you can extrapolate if you want to) speeds. Molekule: Manual Speed 1, screen off: 22.6 Watts Manual Speed 3, screen off: 25.0 Watts Manual Speed 5, screen off: 57.4 Watts Manual Speed 6 (top speed), screen off: 109 Watts AirMega 400S: Manual speed 1: 6.0 Watts Manual speed 4 (top speed): 60.8 Watts