Here is a collection of cheating techniques of ionizers when reporting test results @jljcolorado

1) Use a small chamber or position their equipment above a tiny surface (example Petri dish) when reporting efficiency to exaggerate the %.

For example, reported efficiency of an equipment positioned above a tiny surface is 93%. Applying to real conditions (duct, with appropriate surface area and contact time), this efficiency will be 0.0016%.

2) Run for a long duration not relevant for air flow/speed when installed in ducts.
3) Only report the efficiency in %. Do not report CFM or CADR.
4) Compare results to guidelines that are NOT relevant to indoor settings.

5) Do not report by-products (ozone, formaldehyde, ultrafine particles). If they do, they use less than x ppb rather than report the actual value and again choose guidelines that are not relevant to indoor conditions. Or 6) Use a large chamber when reporting by-products.

7) Do not use a continuous emission source. For example, they use a single spray of pollution and stop during the test to exaggerate the effects.

8) Mislead by using a reputable lab and pseudo scientists to report the data of ill-designed experiments.
9) When branding their product, they make sure to add new fancy technologies. Bonus if they add words like “magic” “competing with Denver mountains” etc.