Better Business Bureau rejects Molekule’s air purifier claims
thewirecutter.com
thewirecutter.com
Molekule's marketing claims have been debunked from the start. Their massive social media advertising campaigns have fed a lot of misinformation to a lot of people since their launch. It's amazing how many people I know who confidently recommend Molekule air filters as superior technology based on nothing more than having seen their Instagram ads. Molekule has secured media puff pieces from several influential media outlets as well as several print publications, none of whom seem to have done the slightest amount of testing to verify their claims.
Both Wirecutter and Consumer Reports actually tested the Molekule and found the performance to be abysmal. Wirecutter went so far as to declare it the worst air purifier they've ever tested: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-air-purifier/#molekul...
The product just plain does not work, and their marketing material appears to be pure lies. I hope they see some consequences for this.
Perhaps the worst part is that the underlying PECO technology is potentially promising as an adjunct to a traditional HEPA filter. Instead, the Molekule company has gone all-in in their anti-HEPA marketing strategy, creating a false dichotomy for marketing hype instead of trying to create an evolution of the standard HEPA filter.
This has always been a fertile area for scams, like the air filter that caused the demise of the Sharper Image, once it was established that it caused dangerous ozone levels.
I live in a city block with nut trees and a dog. The pollen, dander and pollen+diesel soot from the main road sucks and creates a mess. Running one of these machines in our front room makes a noticeable difference during peak pollen and shedding seasons.
Here's what it shows in my bedroom:
measured values:
0.88 pm1.0
0.93 pm2.5
0.93 pm4.0
0.93 pm10.0
5.87 nc0.5
6.95 nc1.0
7.00 nc2.5
7.00 nc4.5
7.00 nc10.0
0.52 typical particle sizethe 211+ performed the best on wirecutter's own tests, but wasn't the top recommendation for what seemed like arbitrary reasons. you change the filter twice a year for about $100 in yearly costs.
i hvae some air leakage around doors and windows (old building), but it's not enough to overwhelm the 211+ (as noted by my air quality sensor). in fact, i'm ok with some external air exchange, because CO2 levels can otherwise get unacceptably high overnight.
good to hear it's made such a difference for you. i've never considered getting an air purifier, but living in a city, maybe i should.
i think the main (dubious) issue before was that they doubted the longevity of the high air purification levels they saw and so didn't want to give it a recommendation at the time.
I got a CO2 sensor recently, and I'm surprised how much of a difference small changes can make. One of my rooms was hitting 1600-1800ppm overnight (which as I understand it is not a problem per se but not great) with the door open about 2in/5cm - leaving the internal door open an extra 6in/15cm or so means it rarely goes above about 700ppm (generally hovers around 600).
I'm also surprised at how quickly it'll go up - that same room will go from 800ppm to 1600ppm with the door shut in well under an hour.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradia...
> "Sterilization" is often misquoted as being achievable. While it is theoretically possible in a controlled environment, it is very difficult to prove and the term "disinfection" is generally used by companies offering this service as to avoid legal reprimand. Specialist companies will often advertise a certain log reduction, e.g., 6-log reduction or 99.9999% effective, instead of sterilization.
A consumer-grade HEPA air purifier (DIY or < $200 on Amazon) against a wall in your bedroom will commonly cut PM 2.5 concentrations by 10x in a few hours if you keep your windows and doors closed.
Source: I own a PM 2.5 counter and have operated air purifiers in China smog and California wildfires. There's also plenty of evidence out there.
https://www.shinola.com/power-supply-5-port-usb.html - $185 power supply
My gf ordered a few things that took AGES to arrive (probably because its shipping straight from China), with 0 customer support (primarily because it's likely run by a single person that couldn't care less about the actual customer who probably subscribes to /r/entrepreneur or /r/juststart). And the final product was as you put it, garbage.
Probably they waited until they had enough orders to fill a container (or a single pallet in someone else's container!) to save money.
https://www.westfield.com/oakridge/stores/all-stores/as-seen...
If you see something on TV, then overhear people talking about it on the street, then see it on FB, you're much more likely to buy it.
Even though each signal is weak and unreliable (and even together they still probably don't mean much) the connection in your brain is more robust.
There’s complete garbage like supplements on there. Just do your research and make sure the brand has a decent refund policy.
Reminds me of an overpriced tech company that claim security but continuously gets their devices hacked.
Is this any different than people buying any luxury product based on marketing? Look at any designer clothing item. It's all based on (close to 100%) what people feel as a result of marketing and branding. The actual product sure is sometimes higher quality and better but not to the extent that it costs.
Take a women's pocketbook for $5000 (Gucci). It's a pocketbook. Woman buys it because of marketing and image. Same here I say (Tesla is another example and note that Bill Gates still buys Porsche because that was the car in the era he was raised in).
OK, but if the $5,000 pocketbook secretly incinerated anything you put in it, you'd probably get some frustrated customers.
A Gucci pocketbook may be overpriced, but you're at least getting something that works.
is it weird that i kind of want to build this?
In many cases, people pay the extra because, yes, it's only fifty percent better and costs ten times as much, but there are no products that are fifty percent better and only cost fifty percent more. If you want fifty percent better, you will have to pay ten times as much. If you can afford it and you don't want the lesser quality product, this is realistically your only option.
Price often doesn't scale linearly. Neither do, say, academic grades. The difference between an A and a B is often more work than the difference between a B and a C.
Still, that's something entirely different than straight up lying about the objective qualities of your product. Especially medically-relevant ones.
In all seriousness, for that coronavirus mention, I'd like to see someone jailed.
It's just a pet peeve of mine that dressing well is often mocked as frivolous. It often has a gendered component to it, like women are silly creatures.
I knew a professional couple that both worked at the same place in different departments. She talked about going shopping and both of them spending hundreds of dollars on office clothes over the weekend.
The following Monday, she got teased at work for wearing a new outfit. No one said one word to her husband about his new office attire, though he had spent at least as much as her.
My annoyance about how socially acceptable it is to act like nice clothes are merely stupid status symbols is in no way intended to justify deceptive marketing, especially for medical stuff.
People paying for a Gucci know what they're getting: a pocketbook that conveys a particular fashion, status, and personal brand. People buying Molekule air filters don't know what they're getting.
If Mlekule air filters could be picked up at $5 at your local 7-11, this would still be predatory false advertising. The price doesn't matter.
###
Molekule claimed at the time that its “scientifically-proven nanotechnology outperforms HEPA filters in every category of pollutant.”
Our tests proved otherwise. The Molekule turned in the worst performance on particulates of any purifier, of any size, of any price, that we have tested in the seven years that we have been producing this guide.
Not long after we published our findings, that statement was removed from the Molekule website.
Guide author Tim Heffernan asked Molekule CEO Dilip Goswami why. He answered, “the point about ‘in all categories’ is that we see a device that outperforms across all of the categories. Right? So we’re not trying to say that individually, on any particular metric, we would be number one. Right? What we’re saying is, when you look across all the categories, we outperform HEPA. Right? And that’s what we’re attempting to convey with that. And so—it’s fair to say that we needed to re-examine some of the language to make sure that it’s saying what we’re intending to say.”
###
This seems like it rises to the level of criminally false?
If you are immuno-compromised or otherwise in poor health, then maybe these are worth something, but I highly doubt it. The volume of air they "purify" versus a given room is nothing.
Imagine visualizing the air around you in a room that you are breathing, do you think a small device in the corner with a HEPA filter is going to solve anything?
It's all smoke and mirrors.
I don't think ever before in human history there have been as many particulates in the air as they are now (except when a volcano erupted, until the ash settled).
Additionally, "handling all this stuff" doesn't come for free: I don't have them on hand, but in the previous HN discussions about pollution there have been several papers linked on the effects of pollution on cognitive ability and health in general.
How is your HEPA filter in the corner going to handle that? Not well, at all.
I have a comment from someone saying they were saved from brush fire smoke, yet no indication they'd have been harmed without the air purifier.
This is exactly what the article is talking about, wanting to believe in something that is scientifically unproven.
Based on the tone of your remarks it doesn't appear to me that you desire a discussion, rather a confrontation, so I will refrain from spending more time on this matter.
You are free to choose what you believe :)
Untrue, I actually own this device.
As an Aussie an air purifier saved me from the bushfire smoke and the subsequent dust that was relentless for months. I tried for about a week without one, and nearly ended in hospital multiple times. The air purifier made a safe little haven that was the only place I could breathe without discomfort. After 1.5 months I needed to change the filter as it began to spew out dust and smoke because it was all clogged up. (It was supposed to last 12 months in average conditions)
On the worst days when you couldn't see more than short distances, and the filter was running flat out, I found that a ceiling fan helped circulate the air so that 2 rooms (about 25 sqm) were regularly filtered and clean.
They fully believe their own bullshit. By any objective measure they aren’t lying. They’re dogmatic and steadfastly wrong. You know, idiots.
Truth in Advertisement.
It is takes a Corrupt organization like the BBB is "expose" this bad company (meaning they simply did not pay the BBB enough money) then really the "core" of the problem is not with Molekule at all, but with a system that allows companies like Molekule to exist with little to no liability.
There should be a way to actually economically harm these companies that make these false claims, but instead it is up to the FTC to "regulate" their advertisements and clearly they (the FTC) do not actually do anything
Seems like we have a mini-theranos on our hands. To make claims in your sales material about you PECO technology filtering VOCs then claim you weren't talking about the product itself is beyond scummy.
It’s crazy how many pseudo-scientific gadgets are hyped up by social media these days. Here in Germany we have startups like “Mitte” that wants to sell “personalized water” produced using smart purifiers and some rather sketchy marketing (https://mitte.co). They were really successful on Kickstarter (where else) but seem to be in financial trouble now. Maybe that’s not surprising since Germany (like many European countries) has really good drinking water, so apart from making the water softer by removing calcium carbonate (which is also only a problem in some regions) there’s really not much you can do to improve a basic product like water.
I wonder what’s next after air and water though...
Check out the Fyre Festival documentaries
I'm not sure when this trend of putting blue lights on devices meant to be put in a bedroom started, or when it will end, but for me, this could be the best filter on the market (it's not) and I would still not purchase it based on the blue light.
I have a Winix Air Purifier I bought from Costco in my bedroom and while it has blue lights, they auto-shutoff in a darkened room. There is one blue indicator on the faceplate that stays on, but I remedied that with a piece of eletrical tape.
Running them so obnoxiously bright as well. I once bought a USB plug I could almost read by, it was ridiculous.
They’re plenty bright to see in daylight, and personally I like the retro charm.
I would love if this led to some serious legal consequences. This is creating danger to the public.
This study [0] fairly comprehensively compared the Foobot air quality monitor to a research-grade sensor setup and found that it severely underestimated the temperature (one of the easiest things to get right in my experience), underestimated tVOC, had low correlation on its CO2 output (i.e. the CO2 output was pure garbage) and overestimated PM2.5.
I wish this was unique to Foobot.
The problem seems to be that these companies take a bunch of cheap, low-quality sensors (e.g. using inferred CO2 rather than an NDIR sensor or saving cost by not properly calibrating the sensors), put them in a premium-looking (and priced) package and market them as if they were premium products, because consumers won't know any better.
The worst part is that high-quality sensors really aren't that expensive. A bundle of Sensirion tVOC, CO2, RH/T and particulate sensors can be had for under $200 and with proper calibration they work great. Hook them to an ESP32 or something and put them in a case and you've basically got a Foobot.
I want to be able to recommend the Bissell Air400, as it is quieter, has a built in PM 2.5 meter, auto adjusts to pollutants, and the filter works at least as well.
Unfortunately, it randomly turns itself off. This seems to be a design flaw, as many other people report the same thing. Also, it doesn’t seem to use a PID control loop to set fan speed, so the automatic speed controller sets itself far too low for our house. On the bright side, it is frequently on sale for 50%+ off, since it has a terrible reputation.
In practice, I leave the honeywell on, and use the bissell if there’s a problem (cooking smoke, allergies, wildfires, etc). In tandem, the two are able to lower PM 2.5 by over 90%, which is more than enough for fire season.
Edit: In hindsight, I would have bought the HPA 300, and a standalone sensor like the ones from purple air.
When it comes to dealing with consumer complaints, the BBB's goal is to make its members look good and keep them out of civil lawsuits, regulatory investigations, and media reports. They want to minimize damage to paying members, and will do things like removing bad reviews from its websites (this personally happened to me).
If you have some time check out the CNN report into the BBB (especially "These companies got A+ ratings?"): https://money.cnn.com/news/companies/bbb-ratings/
https://www.consumerreports.org/air-purifiers/molekule-air-p...
They still ended up including Molekule in their list of 3 worst https://www.consumerreports.org/air-purifiers/best-air-purif...
In any case I have a general rule. If you need to advertise your product it sucks. If you have a quality product you will sell based on word of mouth of early adopters. The first example that comes to mind is Tesla which spends zero on marketing.
So for me, if I'm looking to buy a certain item and I see an ad for something in that category it will be the last manufacturer that I consider. This isn't always true but so far this rule of thumb has held up for me pretty well.
https://ir.tesla.com/node/19496/html
"Marketing, promotional and advertising costs are expensed as incurred and are included as an element of selling, general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of operations. We incurred marketing, promotional and advertising costs of $70.0 million, $66.5 million and $48.0 million in the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively."
I suspect most of this cost is banners and such in their stores and video production for their youtube channel. Maybe they also count reveal event.
In any case it pales in comparison to let's say Wv who spends between 5 and 6 billion each year [1].
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/286537/volkswagen-advert...
If we count the full 70 million for tesla spend in marketing against an annual average of about 6 billion for Vw, Tesla comes out at $140/car and Vw comes out at $600/car or about 4 times as much pr car.
The main point I was trying to make was that for me ads are a negative towards a brand not a positive as I will suspect the quality of the product if they have to advertise.
This appears to be in violation
Even numerical specifications can be blatantly fraudulent and it's still fine - eg "6.0 horsepower shop vacuum". A standard wall outlet cannot supply more than 2HP, but manufacturers have devised this outlandish "test procedure" that produces the bogus number. Still, zero prior restraint. The best enforcement we can hope for is a class action lawsuit in a decade where everyone will get a coupon for five dollars off a new shop vac, and the industry will move on to a new fraudulent measure.
I wouldn't count a product web page advertisement but I guess definitions vary.
In any case they spend close to nothing if anything on regular ads and sell a ton of cars (at least here in Norway).
I used these for years before realizing I had fallen for their shuck and jive.
Backstory: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/big-berkey-water-filter-sy...
(Source: https://molekule.com/technology )
> "Developed over two decades by research scientists, PECO is an innovative technology that utilizes free radicals—the same radicals used to destroy cancer cells—to break down pollutants at a molecular level, including VOCs, bacteria, mold, viruses, and allergens. By using nanotechnology, PECO is able to destroy pollutants 1000 times smaller than what traditional HEPA technology was designed to trap."
Basically they may be using "PECO" filters, but there's no guarantee a little fan in a cylinder blowing though a PECO filter in the corner of your room will actually significantly clean the air. And they hint that it cures cancer!
At least it looks cool and has a HEPA filter at the base. It just doesn’t move that much air.
Even review sites that look like they are ad supported and independent are controlled by these D2C brands. Eg: Casper owns Sleepopolis.
https://www.vox.com/2017/9/23/13153814/casper-sleepopolis-la...
What a bunch of charlatans. It must be pretty heartbreaking working for a company like this.
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.molekule.com
Edit: btw, the offgassing is bad enough that I wouldn't use this anywhere where people breathe the air. Who knows what this weird offgassing contains. Who ever heard of an air filter that does offgassing?
They're not ultra expensive but they're not super cheap either, and it feels a bit like a first world problem.
The rest depends on your sensitivity to decreases in air quality. Regularly changing a filter in your central AC/heating system is probably enough.
Edited to add: I have had extensive interaction with the BBB regarding real, genuine product safety issues, which encompassed misleading advertising and due to the indifference of the BBB, led to an FTC report and more.
Information on NAD here: https://bbbprograms.org/programs/nad/nad-contact-us