Yes, it’s a reflection - louvres are in the room only, above the basin.
Thankyou all so much for your help - I really, really appreciate it. I feel much more knowledgeable now about what is going on and what options might help. I don’t think I’ll close in the shower coz I absolutely love the Open / walk-in look & feel, but I will definitely look into closing in on top of the divide with glass (& will trial it first). 
3 Likes
I like the idea of a temporary barrier above the partition to see how the airflow changes. Instead of glass you could put light pipes into the ceiling.
Depending on how well the current fan works there are other options.
If the current fan doesn’t do much you can get a more powerful one.
Also depending on the pitch of the roof and the width of your eaves you could put another fan in the ceiling above the shower and exhaust it through the soffit.
2 Likes
Putting something clear above the entrance to the cubicle will not interfere with the openness. But it will help the extractor work more effectively on any steam that is around. The curtain was just a suggestion to decrease the area that the fan has to work on (a low pressure area if you like so air flows only into it not out of it), I am sure currently on a very steamy shower you have drops on the ceiling beyond your cubicle and they end up further into the bathroom. The barrier is there to help stop those forming.
2 Likes
Thanks for posting the photo. Like the choice of colour for the wet panels.
If you are still stumped on what to do:
There should be an explanation for why the fan you have isn’t effective. There are a number of points to consider with how the room overall ventilates. The suggestions of closing off the top of the partition are logical.
On operation of the fan:
It’s really down to what they know. They may be correct in it’s the best they can purchase off the shelf from their local wholesale distributor. There are some high capacity options from the one supplier I provided links to.
EG this one that mounts on the outside of a wall and can connect with a short tube to your internal vent. It will need a backdraft louvre or flap. At 600 m3/hr it is rated for a 40m3 room.
It is always worth talking to suppliers who specialise in a particular type of product. They may know from experience what will work best. Consider their recommendations and discuss with your builder or electrician before making any decision.
If when you test the airflow outside from the existing fan and it’s not forceful (@syncretic suggestions) it could be the existing fan is undersized. It’s also worth determining if the natural airflow in your bedroom is out through the louvres near the basin or typically from the outside and in through the louvres to the room. If the natural draft is incoming a standard axial flow fan will be working against the pressure difference and loose effectiveness.
3 Likes
Thankyou so much - you guys are so unbelievably knowledgeable!!! I am definitely inspired & enthused to look into the extraction fan and will get the divide filled in with glass. I feel now from what you have all suggested that my builder / electrician perhaps didn’t have much experience or interest in the issue as they were very quick to just say “this is the best we can do”. I now feel more confident to research this more and be a bit more assertive when I ask for information and suggestions. I know this may sound weird, but I love my bathroom - it is like a little sanctuary for me and yet I get stressed every time someone has a shower seeing all the steam 
. Thankyou again - all of you - for your advice. I am so, so glad I posted on here !!
4 Likes
Hi Chris and @BrendanMays, why didn’t Choice test the Australian Innovair air purifier? It is on the Sensitive Choice list, and I know someone who had found several other brands had plastic fumes which were a problem for her. The Innovair has used materials “free from chemical off-gassing and volatile organic compounds”. she has found it’s much better. Some people also like to purchase from an Australian manufacturer if they can.
Cost of replacement filters for air purifiers is also an issue. If this could be covered in you next review update that would be helpful. When is the next update planned?
Air pollution is a significant issue year round in Australia despite the misconception it’s only hazardous when visible. The tiny invisible particulate matter PM2.5 which burning wood and vegetation produces at high levels “has health impacts even at very low concentrations – indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed”
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health.
The evidence is clear that the fashion for fire pits is harmful to health, and burning wood for BBQs should be a BBQ stopper.
2 Likes
Hi @Hillsgal. The review currently on our website is from earlier this year, when air purifiers were very hard to come by - stock was very low or non-existent for many models, including InovaAir, due to the bushfires and then COVID-19. We have another review about to start soon which includes several brands and models we couldn’t get last time. All going well, we’ll publish the results in January.
Good idea re the replacement filter costs - I’ll look at including those next time.
7 Likes
Thanks Chris, the whole issue of filters and their properties (prefilters, HEPA level, other filters and quality of these), cost, accessibility to obtain replacements and ease of replacement in the machine are all important. Like printer ink they need to be considered as not only a key aspect of the quality of the product, but a significant reoccurring cost both financially and in time taken to replace them.
2 Likes
I’m not convinced purifiers deliver the benefits many owners genuinely seek.
How would Choice seperate the perceived benefit - placebo from any measurable personal improvement in air quality?
Occupational personal exposure is assessed using wearable monitoring equipment. The measurement techniques and methods are standardised and accredited. Would the best testing be real world over a period of time using personal monitors. How does a week long routine in a household without a purifier compare for exposure to the same routine in the same household with a purifier?
The monitor devices would need to be worn 24x7, to work, on the train, to the shops, in the car, walking through central Sydney etc. Another consideration is ventilation of the home test environment. Is it opened up daily, cleaned and dusted weekly, have regular air change with outside air as required by national standards. I’d suggest you call this the air purifier stress test, @ChrisBarnes? 
At the end of the testing a comparison in total exposure over the test period between with and without would more clearly demonstrate the benefits or otherwise of the product type. Performing the testing using the best or best of tested models might be all that is necessary to put forward a genuine assessment of the relative benefits.
I’m also assuming the Choice team has professional resources knowledgeable in ventilation and air quality.
For those in the community more interested in the topic the following Handbook produced by the Australian Building Codes Board is a useful reference.
The content suggests that there are a number of potential shonkies with domestic or in home air purifiers. In particular it points out that UV light IS NOT an effective control of bacteria and fungal spores. The document also classifies the full range of air born contaminants providing guidance on the recommended exposures and typical sources.
It was enlightening to note the many different sources of contaminants, natural and man made that contribute to decreased air quality.
Recommended external air change rates necessary to maintain a healthy environment are typically quoted as up to ten changes of room volume per hour. How does the rate of air circulation through the tested air purifiers compare with rate of influx of recommended new outside fresh potentially contaminated air? I’ve also noted sources with much lower hourly exchange volumes, perhaps once per hour or less as adequate for a domestic residence?
A final question considering homes that have been designed as modern airtight low energy structures. Design requires these to be mechanically force ventilated to maintain air quality. A properly designed system would include both a heat recovery/transfer system, filtration and possibly sterilisation. Is the difference in outcome compared to a typical room purifier significant?
(Edit) note on effectiveness of UVC as a disinfectant. It’s certainly not sunlight.
2 Likes
There has been information claiming that they use the VirusKiller Air Purifiers in Hospitals, at the Dentists, General Practices and Office Buildings. Could you please review the models that are available in Australia or at least investigate them.
Welcome to the Community @mick1707
@ChrisBarnes may look to include this product on the next air purifier review update.
In addition to the current tests there is another related topic on the Community
4 Likes
Are air purifiers worth the money? Here’s what our experts say:
4 Likes
Hi I’m looking for a medical air filter and wondered if the VBreathe Tasman is rated by CHOICE. The adveritising is pretty amazing. I need to address mould, dust and other household pollutants v quickly as I have sick husband in hospital reuturning home soon. Any Help gratefully received
Welcome to the Community @KarenJaneClare
I merged our topic into this existing one that might have some value for you.
It does not appear to have been evaluated. Unless a proper relevant scientific test can be found anything that can be added would be at best anecdotal opinion.
I see they have many references to tests on their website. Each test cited needs to be clarified regrading the what, how, and result. For example a good design award is not a certification or assessment of performance, but is a basket of things.
Only a relevant practitioner would be able to advise on the tests in an authoritative manner. The tests might reinforce it is an excellent filter/purifier, or the test might show results that are good in circumstances that do not apply or relate to your husband’s needs, or might be cherry picked statements from broader, wider conclusions.
The Choice review of air purifiers is member content.
Perhaps the VBreathe Tasman might make it into a future test and review @ChrisBarnes ?
2 Likes
Thanks for the heads-up. We might be able to include the VBreathe in a future test. However I see most of its claims are based around removal of viruses, bacteria and mould spores, which we’re unable to test. I would expect that a small portable unit like this might not do well in a CADR type test like ours, which tends to reward models with more powerful fans and large filters for rapid air processing power.
3 Likes
Australian businesses/advertisers are permitted substantial latitude in what they can say when promoting a product.
The greater the quality of the promotional material for any product the more amazing the product can appear.
To minimise the risk of a bad purchase stick to products for which there are genuine independent reviews. I’d look for a Choice recommended product.
Personal observations.
As a compact battery powered product the VBreathe Tasman is as expensive as a number of Choice tested air purifiers, but of lesser physical substance. The use of a HEPA grade filter is typical. The use of ‘essential oils’ delivered through a gel might be just as easily replicated using a bottle and wicking device placed on a table under the ceiling fan. Note ceiling fans are exceptionally effective at moving air, and hence your chosen ‘essential oils’.
1 Like
Essential oils smell nice mostly. But what if you are trying to avoid or remove volatile organics because they make you cough?
The advertising shows all manner of tests of various capabilities with impressive looking numbers attached to them.
“99.999% efficient” doesn’t actually mean anything unless you define “efficient” and how you measure it.
Eurofins Laboratories found VBreathe capable of reducing a strand of coronavirus with 99.9% efficiency. This strand of coronavirus is accepted by the Therapeutic Goods Administration as a surrogate for COVID-19.
This does not mean the efficacy of the product is certified by the TGA. Nor does it mean it will clear your house of COVID viruses, it means that under some circumstance (unstated) it kills most such viruses.
In 60 minutes, concentration of 1 Micron and 2.5 Micron particles were reduced by 97% and 96% respectively.
In what sized room? Is this is a one cubic meter perspex test box or a 100 cubic metre lounge-dining room? No explanation of any of the testing methods is given that I can find.
I would be concerned that such a small low-power device could not move enough air in a reasonable time to do any good in a real house. But comes in designer colours!
2 Likes
Here’s an article focused on reducing viral aerosols based on assessment of air purifiers at Melbourne University:
Which air cleaners work best to remove aerosols that contain viruses? | Pursuit by The University of Melbourne
2 Likes
An interesting assessment that recommends against the added features of high end products. IE It’s suggested they deliver no benefit and may in practice be a health hazard. The professional approach of more correctly referring to the products as air cleaners that filter best describes what the products actually do. It’s dismissing the use of the marketers “air purifier” tag. Likely science suggesting none meet the true definition of delivering pure air.
And you should avoid:
• Ioniser/plasma/ozone/photocatalytic oxidation/precipitators and UV purification or disinfecting add-ons. These are unproven/untested technologies, and in some cases actually dangerous technologies, significantly degrading the air quality by producing ions, ozone and oxidation products. Ozone and ions can also trigger asthma, so these technologies should be avoided
More directly stated the recommendations were for a simple air filter that met HEPA filtration standards combined with an activated carbon filter to remove odours.
There are other observations in the report on recommended fresh air change rates for rooms. The Uni staff comments on air filtration being an extra tool for reducing health risks and not the solution are worth further discussion.
4 Likes
Re the recent Choice Dehumidifier reviews.
Note DeLonghi promote the AriaDry Pure DDSX220WF as also being an air purifier. It includes a HEPA rated particle filter and activated carbon filter.
These added features @MattSteen are not listed or highlighted in the review. It’s also not possible to compare models based on whether they have HEPA filters. Are there other models reviewed that include higher standard filtration? Should the performance of the filtration also be assessed, given the claims they are also ‘Air Purifiers’?
It would seem a better proposition to buy just a dehumidifier as opposed to two items both consuming power in operation.
‘DDSX220WF-WH Tasciugo AriaDry Pure Dehumidifier 21L | De'Longhi AU
4 Likes
