Indoor Air Quality

Let's Compare ActivePure And PECO (Photo-Electrochemical Oxidation) Technology

Learn how ActivePure's science-backed indoor air quality technology compares against the trendy competition, PECO

July 20, 2022
Last Updated On:
September 28, 2022
Last Updated On:
September 28, 2022

Spend an hour researching portable air purifiers, and you'll swiftly be served ads for your search engine's favorite brands and highly-marketed products. Inundated with options from True HEPA systems to air ionizers and UV-based solutions, you may be enticed to click on the industrial design marvels that are PECO air purifiers. However, in the air purification industry, there is not a saying that rings more true than "never judge a book by its cover." While some brands may focus on sleek product packaging (the cover), other manufacturers are working endlessly to test their indoor air quality technologies (the story) for proven efficacy and safety. In this article, we'll explain how our science-backed air purification technology, ActivePure, stacks up against the trendy competition, PECO technology.

What Is ActivePure Technology?

ActivePure Technology is a revolutionary air and surface purification solution based on a concept used to scrub ethylene from the air during space travel (itself based on an earlier technological concept called photocatalytic oxidation, or PCO). ActivePure Technology shines a shielded UV light on a honeycomb matrix coated with a catalyst. Creating a reaction that turns water vapor into the following reactive oxygen species: superoxide (O2⁻), gaseous hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), the hydroxyl ion (HO⁻), and most importantly, the hydroxyl radical (HO⋅). 

These scrubbing molecules pull apart bacteria, viruses, mold spores, and volatile organic compounds in the air and reduce the aforementioned pathogens on surfaces. Unlike PCO predecessors, our proprietary perfection of technology produces these desirable reactive oxygen species without producing unintentional byproducts such as ozone1 and VOCs2. The most important fact to note here, for comparison with PECO, is that ActivePure distributes its molecules throughout the room, filling the entire space, making ActivePure an active (as opposed to passive) purification method.

What is PECO Technology (Photo-electrochemical Oxidation)?

PECO stands for Photo-electrochemical oxidation. It is the proprietary technology of a single company. Let's give them a fair shake by letting them describe the technology in their own words:

"The process of PECO works as light excites a nanoparticle coated filter, creating a chemical reaction on the surface of the filter that results in the creation of hydroxyl free radicals. These same radicals are used to kill cancer cells in radiation therapy. The free radicals oxidize pollutants at the surface of the filter and convert them into harmless elements like trace amounts of water and carbon dioxide. By innovative manipulation of the electron flow, this new photoelectrochemical oxidation (PECO) technology works orders of magnitude faster than conventional photocatalytic processes. The resulting high quantum efficiency produces a dramatic increase in hydroxyl radical production on the surface [of] the filter, greatly surpassing the limitations of traditional photocatalytic oxidation technologies (PCO)."

The key takeaway of this description is that PECO is a heavy modification of PCO technology that moves the catalyst to the surface of the filter itself. It appears that the goal of this modification is to confine the hydroxyl reactions to the filter as well, turning the active technology of PCO into a passive technology.

Microbiology Air Quality Lab Testing

Is PECO Air Purification Effective?

Yes, PECO technology itself appears to be effective. Several outside organizations have tested the technology, and several medical-grade devices with PECO have even received FDA clearance as medical devices.

However, the fact that PECO itself works does not mean it works well in all the devices it deployed within, specifically the devices marketed for home use. For instance, Consumer Reports tested a PECO home purifier's ability to remove particulate matter from a test chamber. While PECO is not targeted toward removing particulate matter, this test was used to establish how much air was flowing through the machine. Based on lackluster results, the Consumer Reports test team estimated that the model of PECO purifier they tested couldn't handle a room larger than 100 square feet; for comparison, the average size of a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco is 700 square feet

PECO's owners countered that the slower air flow can increase the "destruction efficiency," but we fail to see how this matters if microbes are not entering the chamber in the first place because of low airflow. (In fairness to the company that makes PECO, they do have test results that appear to show effectiveness in a larger space, as we shall see in the next section.)

Discover The ActivePure Advantage

Is PECO Technology More Effective Than ActivePure?

PECO is a passive technology because the disinfection takes place inside the reaction chamber. While this helps clean the filter, it eliminates the main advantage of photocatalytic oxidation—its ability to neutralize pathogens out in the room 24/7 rather than wait for them to pass through the device or its filter. We need active air quality technologies rather than passive air purification in a world with ever-new infectious diseases. In addition to the disadvantage of being a passive technology, ActivePure has more promising test results.

Passive Air Purification Efficacy

Comparing PECO Commercial Unit vs. ActivePure's Medical Guardian.

For instance, a test of a PECO unit reduced Coliphage φX174 (a common testing surrogate for more dangerous viruses) in the air by 98.7% in 24 hours. By comparison, the Aerus Medical Guardian reduced the same virus by over 99.99% in only one hour.3

For an even more startling comparison, the same laboratory (Aerosol Labs) tested both the ActivePure Medical Guardian and a PECO-based unit in two separate experiments. This lab used the same size test chamber (562 cubic feet) and the same bacteriophage (MS2 RNA virus) to test both units. After 60 minutes, the PECO unit's best log reduction (out of 4 tests) was 4.71 (or slightly under 99.999%) while the Aerus Medical Guardian's log reduction was 6.06 (or slightly over 99.9999%...below the detection limit when you factor in the standard deviation).4 That may not seem like a significant difference at first, but it represents over a factor of ten in the number of viral particles.

Comparing PECO's Medical Unit vs. ActivePure's Medical Guardian

You may think it is unfair of us to pit a small home unit vs. a medical grade unit, but PECO's medical-marketed offering had an even more significant performance gap. After one hour, it reduced MS2 by only 99.9477%. This performance gap may be because the experiment tested only the filters used in PECO's medical unit and not the unit itself. Further data is required to draw a proper definitive conclusion.

Comparing PECO's Commercial Unit vs. ActivePure's Pure And Clean

Let's compare our relative effectiveness at reducing the virus on everyone's mind—SARS-CoV-2—using nonmedical units only. PECO has results showing it reduces SARS-CoV-2 below the detectable limit in slightly over 2 minutes under laboratory conditions. A device with ActivePure Technology (specifically the Aerus Pure & Clean) reduces SARS-CoV-2 below the detectable limit in less than ONE minute under laboratory conditions.4

Net LOG reduction summary for the ActivePure Medical Guardian (Image credit: Aerosol Labs)

Our Final "Hot Take" On PECO Air Purifiers

When it comes to the air purification industry, products with technologies backed by science air often overshadowed by the trendier choice. In the case of ActivePure vs. PECO, a sleek industrial design cannot compete with ActivePure's proven, safe, and thoroughly tested air quality solutions. If you need an a purifier that gets the job, we recommend going with ActivePure.

Published by ActivePure


  1. Intertek (2013). "BGA Ozone Report." Intertek.
  2. Aerus. (2019). "Aerus Medical Guardian Organic Oxidation Byproducts." Aerus.
  3. Balarashti, et. al. (2019). "Efficacy of Aerus Medical Guardian Air System against Various Bioaerosols." [Unpublished Lab Study]. Aerosol Research and Engineering Laboratories.
  4. Lawrence, William S. & Peel, Jennifer E. (2022). "ActivePure Air Purifier Against Respiratory Pathogens." [Unpublished Lab Study]. University of Texas Medical Branch.

Sign Up For The Sanalife Monthly Newsletter

Our best stories on indoor air quality and facilities management delivered straight to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our Statement and to receive marketing and account-related emails from Sanalife. You can unsubscribe at any time.

We're dedicated to providing advanced energy management and indoor air quality solutions to schools, businesses, and organizations across the United States.

©2024 InTech Energy, Inc. DBA Sanalife and E360. All rights reserved. Various trademarks held by their respective owners.