Talk:Negative air ions

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Negative air ions article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Chemistry

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Pulmonology

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Review

This article offers a thorough introduction to NAIs, covering everything from their historical discovery to modern applications. The content is rich and well-organized, making it an excellent piece of popular science writing.

Strengths:

Historical Overview: Provides a history of NAI discovery and research, helping readers understand its development. Empirical Data: Cites numerous scientific studies, adding to the article's credibility. Practical Examples: Clearly explains the applications of NAIs in air purification and health promotion, making it highly practical. Suggestions for Improvement:

Language Style: The language is somewhat academic and could be adjusted to a more reader-friendly style. Latest Developments: Including the latest research developments and application examples would make the content more cutting-edge. JEREMY1117 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job!

This article provides a comprehensive introduction to negative air ions (NAIs), covering their definition, history, generation mechanisms, types, production methods, effects, detection and evaluation methods, and main influencing factors. The content is detailed and well-organized.

Strengths:

Comprehensive Information: The article thoroughly covers various aspects of NAIs, from basic definitions to practical applications. Scientific Rigor: It cites extensive research and historical records, enhancing the article's credibility. Practical Value: It explains the specific roles of NAIs in air purification and health promotion, providing methods for detection and evaluation. Suggestions for Improvement:

Simplify Language: Some sections use complex terminology, which could be simplified for non-specialist readers. Visual Aids: Adding illustrations or charts could help readers understand complex concepts and mechanisms more intuitively. AzzurroLan (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

I think this article covers a very interesting topic, but it is a bit difficult to follow. I did not quite understand the "Generation mechanisms" and the "Generation method" section, maybe they can be merged together to let the reader better understand the concept.

I added wikilinks throughout the entire page, since they were completely missing. Having them is particularly helpful for non-domain expert to understand the concepts.

I reorganized the "See also" section with links in alphabetical order, as indicated by the course tutors.

I also believe that the first image is not really meaningful to the covered topic and it is not understandable foreign users. Beatrice Branchini (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following an expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in July 2024.

In the introductory of the article (the second sentence), there is a “theory” (or a “definition”, perhaps?) of NAIs by the Joint Atmospheric Commission of the International Union of Geophysics and Geodesy, but there is no reference for this statement. Within the same sentence, among the examples of NAIs, the species “CO4(H2O)2” seems to be wrong for two reasons: this species is electrically neutral (there is no negative charge), and CO4 is unlikely to exists according to the common rules of chemical valence (even with a negative charge). Also within the introduction, the term “more electrophilic” is used in an improper way. The article that is linked at this point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophile) is clearly about a different chemical property. I believe that the correct terminology would be “higher electron affinity” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity). Clicking of the title of the article in ref. [1], the reader is re-directed to a different reference. Please check. The “history” section of the article lacks references. In the second sentence (“At the end of the 19th century, German physicist Dr. Philip Leonard...”) contains the link to a Wikipedia article on “Philip Leonard Gibbard (born 1949 in Chiswick, London)...”. Within the same section, there is a very abrupt jump from 1932 (no reference) to 2020 (ref. [4]). It is hard to believe that this is a balanced and objective description of the evolution of a scientific field. The section of “Generation mechanisms” contains the sentences: “Air molecules are composed of atoms, which are made up of nuclei and electrons... When neutral molecules or atoms in the air capture the free electrons that escape, they become negative air ions.[5]” This is very common knowledge for anyone who has had a slight exposure to chemistry (high school level). Any general chemistry textbook would be appropriate as reference here. Instead, ref.[5] discusses a much more specific formation mechanism, that is not explained within the Wikipedia article. In the following paragraph, it is written: “Most of the NAIs discussed in current research refer to small negatively charged air ions.[6]”. What is the “current research”? This looks like a sentence that has been simply cut and pasted from elsewhere (not from ref.[6]). The section on “Monopole coefficient (q)” has a single reference (too little for Wikipedia standards). Ref.[19] is actually about “A Numerical Determination of the Absorption Coefficient of the Negative Hydrogen Ion", which has very little to do with the contents of the section... It is not necessary to read further, to convince oneself that this article is very poor, to the point that it is probably a disservice to Wikipedia.

--Aandurro (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the review and for drawing attention to CO₄ which I did not know existed. The most recent study I found on CO₄ was this 2007 letter which states:

The carbon tetraoxide molecule has been assumed to be a key intermediate that is formed in irradiated molecular oxygen–carbon dioxide (CO2–O2) mixtures as a prerequisite for ozone (O3) formation and in explaining the disappearance of oxygen atoms [17]. The CO4 molecule has also been suggested as a potential high energy molecule (HEM) due to the large amount of energy that would accompany its dissociation [18], [19]. Thus far, only one experimental study revealing the existence of a CO4 molecule has been carried out [20].

Is there anyone who can look this image over?

However, it is extremely transient, and presently the article implies otherwise. Also I am concerned about the image used in the lead which I see the author of this article created, but which doesn't have a source. My knowledge of atmospheric chemistry is limited to knowing that it is exceedingly complex. I would feel more comfortable if someone with some familiarity with the topic could look over it. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unscientific and poor English

This reads like propaganda for TCM or homeopathy, written with many, many English mistakes. 103.14.92.44 (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made-up citations, information

This article seems to make up claims:

In 1889, German scientists Elster and Geitel first discovered the existence of negative oxygen ions.
- The only reference to 1889 in the source is a line reading "The supervisory school authority honoured their engagement with the titles Oberlehrer (senior teacher) in 1889/1990 and Gymnasialprofessor (professor at Gymnasium) in 1896".
In 1932, the world's first medical negative oxygen ions generator was invented in the United States.
- The source for this claim doesn't include any mention of the year 1932, and the word "medical" is never used in the article.
At the end of the 19th century, German physicist Philipp Eduard Anton Lenard first explained the effects of negative oxygen ions on the human body in academic research.
- This sentence is unsourced, and I can find no evidence that this Nazi physicist ever even studied biology, let alone the effect of negative oxygen ions in the human body.
In 1902, scholars such as Ashkinas and Caspari further confirmed the biological significance of negative oxygen ions.
- Who are Ashkinas and Caspari? This statement is unsourced, and I'm not sure these people even exist.

Much of this article is unscientific, dubious, or inappropriate. Nothing in the Health Promotion section meets the standards outlined in WP:MEDRS. I'm not going to write a detailed explanation for everything that I am deleting/rewriting, if anyone wants an explanation on any particular point then feel free to ask and I will explain. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely inappropriate hacking, reverted. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "hacking" involved. I was very careful in what I culled and rewrote, but if you prefer then I can simply break up my edit into a dozen or so small, individual edits with edit summaries. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better. I have removed the medical aspects/hypotheses/fringe/quackery. That should be included, but treated NPOV (which is not going to be trivial). Ldm1954 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, I found this 1901 paper by E. Aschkinass & W. Caspari in German seemingly having to do with bactericidal effects of some type of radiation on organic matter. I don't know if they have a 1902 paper, or if "Ashkinas" is a different translation of "Aschkinass". The sources cited don't support the claims, so either 1) the claims are real but the article-creator used irrelevant sources for some reason (maybe they have foreign-language sources but wanted to use English sources and cited inadequate English sources instead) or 2) the claims are spurious. If the claims can be substantiated by a source (English or foreign-language) then I don't mind them being returned. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

I am personally focusing on the non-medical parts. Much of that is now decent, although some more research is needed on the plant/ions part. Maybe also a little more digging into the waterfall effect is relevant. Particulate precipitation also needs a bit more.

Others have added a couple of sentences on the medical. My personal opinion is that what is currently there is too dismissive; NPOV should represent the fringe views per WP:Fringe. Maybe that paper and a few others can be added for a little history, plus some of the fringe claims with carefully NPOV wording. Feel free to edit that. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be checked in a more systematic fashion

The medical relevance. Some care of course needed to differentiate quackery from reality. Not my (Ldm1954) expertise.' ...Revised
Remove WP:Peacock and WP:Weasel, there is too much of this....Done
Rewrite the lead properly (later)...Done
Rewrite the Lenard effect, the current version is confused. (Maybe add to TrX later.)...Enough
Rewrite the lightning, also a bit bad....done

Please add to or comment on this list. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article should mention how negative air ionization therapy is pseudoscience. ReyHahn (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...done, with the caveat that there is no decent "source" for it being pseudoscience that is NPOV. Some were added, but they are not relevant or NPOV. I have rewritten that section, hopefully decent now.Ldm1954 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Individual sources do not need to be NPOV. Our article needs to be NPOV by discussing various sources (which often are POV) in prominence to their weight. Alternative health topics often have many more popular sources in their support than they have scientific sources opposing them. This is because there is a commercial incentive to write books, articles, etc., promoting alternative health treatments to desperate people looking for anything that might help; while there is no commercial incentive for scientists to continually conduct and publish research showing a lack of effectiveness for alternative health treatments. Sometimes silence speaks loudest: if a treatment isn't used in clinical settings and has a lack of research on it, despite having been known about over a century, that speaks loudly to it being ineffective.

I will add a caveat that the idea of negative air ions effecting human health in positive or negative ways is not a pseudoscience. However, there is much pseudoscience surrounding it. This is commonly the case with pseudoscience, that it takes a legitimate medical topic (e.g. Chelation therapy) but treats it pseudo-scientifically. The article should cover the science of the health effects of negative air ions, while also clarifying that a lot of information on negative air ions is pseudoscience, citing the sources which state as much. Similar to how we handle the chelation therapy article. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]