Ion Beam static reducer - Page 6

#51: Post by **baldheadracing** » May 10th, 2023, 3:20 pm

baldheadracing wrote:I tried my Zerostat a while ago - it didn't appear to do anything useful - RDT was just as much effort and had better results. It did work: If I had a plastic jar full of static-filled coffee, then firing into the mouth of the jar did do something. I still had to tap the jar to drop the grounds on the sides of the jar, but more coffee left the walls of the jar after firing.

Re: the above, I seem to have been doing it wrong. I should have pulled the Zerostat's "trigger" with the Zerostat pointed away from the coffee, then aimed the Zerostat at the coffee, and then slowly released the trigger. Next winter I'll test the Zerostat again.

#52: Post by **LewBK** » May 10th, 2023, 4:46 pm

What are the safety issues with this if any? Ionizers are used in the food industry, but that's not the same as having one in your house. Ionizer air purifiers have been shown to create new health risks: https://phys.org/news/2021-03-uncovers- ... fiers.html

Both chamber and field tests found that an ionizing device led to a decrease in some volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including xylenes, but an increase in others, most prominently oxygenated VOCs (e.g., acetone, ethanol) and toluene, substances commonly found in paints, paint strippers, aerosol sprays and pesticides. According to the EPA, exposure to VOCs has been linked to a range of health effects from eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches, loss of coordination and nausea, to damage to liver, kidney and central nervous system, and some organics can cause cancer in animals, some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans.

Is the technology here the same or different from air purifier ionizers? It seems like a hard pass, given the minimal gains.

#53: Post by **Jeff** » May 10th, 2023, 5:12 pm

Probably best to avoid making coffee in environments where industrial solvents are in moderate or high concentrations. The explosion risks are probably a concern as well.

#54: Post by **baldheadracing** » May 15th, 2023, 12:41 pm

A follow-up - in hindsight this outcome should have been obvious.

Out of curiousity I had to pull out the Zerostat again, but now the Zerostat is back to LP duty.

When coffee grounds are full of static, they don't care where they stick. While it is nice to get the output of a grinder be less messy, aiming the ion source at the output of a grinder does nothing for grounds stuck within the grinder.

So: If your goal is to reduce retention/stop bellowing or bopping the grinder, then I'd say to stick with RDT. If your goal is a cleaner grinds bin or less mess on the counter, then an ion source at the grinder output can help.

YMMV.

May 15th, 2023, 11:05 pm

Thanks for the detail. Hopeful of the ionizer in zerno z1 since it should already have low retention.

#56: Post by **LewBK** » May 16th, 2023, 6:37 am

I hope Zerno either doesn't include the ionizer or allows it to be a choice for an extra cost as I don't see the need for it and think there are potential health risks to it.

May 17th, 2023, 3:38 pm

It's listed as a feature for the new version and no option to remove. Quick google scholar and pubmed search does not bring up any concerns for health risks. It is widely use in air purification systems and you likely are already exposed to it in public buildings. This would only be on a few seconds per grind so it would be minimal exposure if they aren't contained within the grinder.

#58: Post by **LewBK** » May 17th, 2023, 3:55 pm

It's listed as a feature for the new version and no option to remove. Quick google scholar and pubmed search does not bring up any concerns for health risks. It is widely use in air purification systems and you likely are already exposed to it in public buildings. This would only be on a few seconds per grind so it would be minimal exposure if they aren't contained within the grinder.

There are definitely listings for ionizer and carcinogen health risks on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?star ... s_sdt=0,39
Moreover, there is this: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality- ... r-cleaners
I am very familiar with air purifiers and those serious about them for home use generally don't recommend ionizers because of their ozone and carcinogen creation. It seems unnecessary and an added cost to already appealing grinders. Zerno should let consumers choose for themselves if they want it or not.

May 18th, 2023, 12:01 am

Can you directly cite articles that state ionizers are carcinogenic? First link to google scholar does not actually indicate ionizers are directly carcinogenic from the titles of the articles. The second link to epa just states that ionizers can generate ozone and fda set a threshold that is considered safe for air purification. These thresholds usually have a decent buffer range before it would be considered a health risk. This seems to suggest that a short burst used by grinders would likely be well below the safety margins set forth by the fda.

#60: Post by **Jaroslav** » May 18th, 2023, 5:17 am

LewBK wrote:I hope Zerno either doesn't include the ionizer or allows it to be a choice for an extra cost as I don't see the need for it and think there are potential health risks to it.

You're aware of carcinogenic risks of meat and alcohol yet you likely still consume both? I doubt 10 fewer seconds of ionization a day will compensate for the few years of your life lost to those.