Professional restaurant supplies Spring Reading 2016 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Beauty Gifts Made in Italy Amazon Gift Card Offer out2 out2 out2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors Kindle Paperwhite UniOrlando Spring Arrivals in Outdoor Clothing SnS

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

This device has generated controversy here on Amazon, bringing mostly either glowing five star or scathing one star reviews, and the technical discussion has been uninformed. Many of the most positive reviews are from dubious sources. Until such time as the product is evaluated by a neutral expert such as Consumer Reports, I would like to clear up a bit of the engineering side simply by taking a close look at the information put out by Activeion, a marketing operation in Minneapolis. I have not tested the device myself - nor do I see how anyone could properly test it at home, since that requires a specialized laboratory. But I studied a laboratory test of alleged bacteriocidal properties which the company sponsored and frequently refers to, I analyzed some of the company's patent applications, and I applied my own scientific background in physics and chemistry. I found plenty of reasons for skepticism. And I was not able to find any tests of the device which are not sponsored by or connected to the company.

The Activeion product claims to convert ordinary tap water into a powerful cleaning agent and disinfectant by means of an electrochemical process implemented in a handheld spray bottle. The bottle incorporates a battery to pass a current through the water, together with a type of ion exchange (electrolytic) membrane. The basic chemistry is far from new; in fact the phenomenon of electrolysis and its use in producing bleach or chlorine were discovered in the late 1700's, around the time of Benjamin Franklin! It is important to know that the process relies not on water but on SALT water. The method used by the Tennant Company, a manufacturer of commercial cleaning equipment and the corporate parent of Activeion, yields what is usually called "Electrolyzed Water" or "Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water" (EOW). There are several places to read about the relevant chemistry, which can be found by Googling terms such as "electrochemistry" or "electrolysis," or on Wikipedia. Tennant is not the only company which offers this type of technology; there are others such as Electrolyzer Corp., Ecopep Electrocide, and EcaFlo Anolyte, the latter of which has been certified by the EPA as a broad spectrum disinfectant.

Without going into too much detail, the electrolysis process converts salt water into two streams, of which one side generates sodium hypochlorite (otherwise known as ordinary laundry bleach) solution, which of course is a widely used cleaning agent and disinfectant. (I note that Tennant claims in other patent applications, such as 2007/0187261 - which can be searched from the USPTO website - that a nanobubble mechanism also comes into play. More recently their website switched to talking about a third mechanism, "electroporation" as the antibacterial action. But let's keep this discussion to what seems the primary process.) In the version used by Activeion the two streams are recombined which means the two liquids cancel each other out, and revert to plain salt water. But by and large, the end effect is a short-acting solution which is not very different from adding a few drops of inexpensive bleach to one's water bottle, spraying and then quickly wiping it off.

There are some key factors to appreciate about the process. The first is that it is dependent on the incoming water containing a sufficient amount of salt (sodium chloride), without which the water will have no conductivity for electric current and also generate no hypochlorite. Thus pure distilled water or deionized water will not work at all, and in general the efficiency of the process is highly dependent on the exact analysis of the available water, how much salt, how much other minerals. In fact the Tennant patent referenced above says that the water needs to have a certain minimum of salt content to work properly, about 6 grams per liter. But everyone knows that tap water supplies around the U.S. vary tremendously in hardness and salinity.

Second, the process is energy intensive. A significant amount of electric power is required to convert part of the input salt water to bleach in any useful quantity. Third, the cleaning effect of the electrolyzed water is rather mild. Another of Tennant's patent applications, 2009/0120460, reports some measurements they made for carpet cleaning. In that case, by Tennant's own tests, it was only about 20% more effective than plain water, and not nearly as effective as a standard detergent solution. And this was for the large industrial version of the machine, not the handheld, and the solution was also allowed to soak into the carpet for several MINUTES before it was sucked up. So even under these idealized conditions, it had only a mild cleaning effect, and the required soak time makes it impractical for many tasks.

Even if the item being sold here works exactly as claimed, all it appears to do is convert salty water into a sort of temporary weak bleach solution, which is chemically the same as you would buy at the supermarket. The same. It is misleading to say that you will be using 'only pure water to clean, in place of harmful chemicals.' Activeion describes the cleaning as using an 'activated' form of water, which is inaccurate; it is more correct to say that the indispensable ingredient is sodium chloride. Salt may be benign, but once you break it up chemically into sodium and chlorine ions, it becomes potentially harsh. The chloride ion is highly reactive chemically and a well known bacteriocide (swimming pools, water treatment). In its pure form, chlorine gas is not only a 'harmful chemical' but highly toxic - it was used as a poison gas in World War I. The liquid produced by the Activeion is a temporary form of the identical chemical found in Chlorox; except for being short acting, it is not more green or less toxic. As Tennant themselves write in the first referenced patent filing, "the anolyte .. is acidic in nature and contains very strong oxidants in the form of active chlorine" .. and .. "care should be taken on surfaces having a potential for corrosion." In other words, Tennant says that the liquid sprayed out by this bottle could pit and scar a metal surface! It produces chlorine; only a quite expensive form of chlorine. Indeed, way more expensive, since $180 will buy you enough Chlorox to last an ordinary household hundreds of years. The only undeniably green thing about chlorine is its color - yellowish green.

Taking all this into account, the remaining question is really whether the scaled down, handheld device being sold here is actually effective in producing a strong enough solution to do anything useful. So next let's move from the theory to exactly what Activeion claims to be the laboratory proof that their handheld device is "99.99% effective in killing E. coli bacteria." The relevant document is posted on Activeion's website in the form of a report they sponsored from ATS Labs in Eagan, Minnesota, a company which carries out bacteriological tests for a fee. The key word here is "sponsored" - the company paid ATS to do this. Amazon won't allow posting of a link, but you'll find it if you look, or see Comment #1 below. I read this report carefully.

Now think back to junior high school. Suppose someone asked you to test a spray bottle which converts tap water into an antibacterial, how would you go about doing that? Well, if you had the expertise gained from taking ninth grade General Science, you would probably prepare three glass slides with a standard bacterial load on each (such as letting your dog lick each one). One you would keep aside as a control. The second you would dip in your local tap water - which of course you would obtain from your very own tap. Even better, you might use a range of tap waters from different sources. The third slide would be treated with the same water squirted through the magic spray bottle you were trying to test. This would make a great science project, and you might get to represent your school at the state fair!

Pretty logical, right? But - amazingly - this is not what ATS Labs did at all. Instead, they signed a contract with Activeion which required (this is all written down in the report) that ATS would use only the `tap water' provided to them by Activeion, and furthermore they had to promise NOT TO ANALYZE IT in any way. No suspense here by the way - it did end up killing the bacteria. Annihilated them. Are you surprised?

In fact, it is not quite accurate to say that Activeion insisted on providing the testing lab with their own preferred `tap water.' To be more precise, they supplied an UNKNOWN LIQUID. There is absolutely no way to know what was in that liquid - and significantly, ATS was also required to GIVE IT ALL BACK at the end of the tests, and not retain a sample - which I found a bit suspicious. It could have been some kind of tap water, or highly concentrated salt water, or distilled water, or it could have been not water at all but commercial bleach, or another disinfectant, or battery acid, or Chanel Number 5, or the kind of cheap tequila used at frat parties to make large volumes of bad margaritas. Activeion made sure there was no way to ever know.

Furthermore, it is considered a procedural error for a consumer product testing lab to accept the handheld spray/processing unit direct from the company; instead it should have been purchased from a regular retail channel. Normally I would not be concerned but in this case - given Activeion's unusually intense and fervent campaign to market this - the company might not be above providing a souped-up unit to fake the test, which they could do for example by replacing a cheap ion exchange filter with a more expensive, high performance version, or installing more powerful batteries. This is why, to eliminate any such doubts, Consumer Reports buys all their products at retail and accepts nothing direct from the manufacturer.

In other words, the ATS Labs antibacterial test pointed to by Activeion as a pillar of their credibility really proves nothing at all, except that some completely unknown liquid, processed through a bottle which may or may not be the same one sold to consumers, killed bacteria. Well, yes, especially if it was loaded with that cheap tequila - which has almost killed me on one or two occasions.

Why is the company doing this exactly? Why do they misrepresent the chemistry in their ads, acknowledging the role of chlorine in their patents but suppressing this information when they speak to the public? We have already said that electroyzed oxidizing water is not in itself controversial or even new. It's just a way to produce a sort of temporary mild bleach solution, starting from concentrated salt water. Sixty million tons of bleach are produced by electrolytic factories each year. And Tennant, a large company with 3,000 employees, uses the process in its industrial cleaning equipment, which it sells to clean the floors of the New Orleans Superdome or the Pentagon or various Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities or whatever. So why doesn't Activeion, charged by their hedge-fund investors from Los Angeles with marketing a consumer version to the public, simply open up the objective data? Why should they scheme so hard to pervert and manipulate some pathetic contract lab in Minnesota into generating a bogus report? Why do they rely on recruiting Hollywood celebrities like Laura Dern to give testimonials for it? I mean, I adore Laura Dern. I find her very lovely. Remember her in Rambling Rose? What a beauty. But seriously, does she really have a PhD in chemical engineering? Did she even take Home Economics in high school? I bet she was pretty in high school. We had a girl in my high school who looked like Laura Dern ..

Sorry, my mind wandered. What was I saying? Oh yes, and why is it that all the five-star, over the top Amazon reviews seem to be by first-time reviewers who write as if they were professional copywriters for an Activeion ad agency? (Because they are; see Comment #3 below this review.)

Why all this hard work to so fiercely hype something if it actually works? Why corrupt poor Bill Nye The Science Guy into Bill Nye The Sellout Guy?

I suspect the answer is that it doesn't work, or weakly if at all, and I am certain it cannot possibly work the same for everyone. Here's my reasoning. To an engineer, there are three weak links in the story. The first is the transition from a large piece of industrial equipment such as that produced by Tennant to a small battery operated handheld spray bottle. Consider the difference in electrical power to drive the electrolytic process. Whereas the industrial machine uses kilowatts of electricity to run its pumps and currents (whoa, how green is that?), the handheld unit relies on a small rechargeable battery pack. A quick calculation shows that the small bit of electrical energy available from a battery during the second or two it takes to get a good squirt going (perhaps 100 mJ) would not produce enough sodium hypochlorite to bleach the handkerchief of a bug. Tennant's own patents say that their big industrial unit is only slightly more effective than plain water, so what can we expect from a wimpy little spray bottle? The second weak link is that the recombination of the fluids in the Ionator means that the solution starts to revert to plain water very quickly after being sprayed; Activeion says 45 seconds but I suspect it may be more like 45 milliseconds. And the third reason for skepticism is that the efficiency of this technology is dependent on the properties of the available water, which obviously is going to vary widely. Combine these three and it seems likely one will get a weak, fleeting, and inconsistent effect.

That's my theory. Of course it all comes down to testing, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt and see what Consumer Reports might someday conclude. At least CR will be able to choose their own water. Hey, I'm not saying it absolutely does not work, only that I am dubious and would like to see real data from some lab that has not just cashed an Activeion check. What is undeniable, unfortunately, is that Activeion's promotional campaign is extremely hyped, including statements which contradict their own patent filings, and a cynical attempt to twist the reviews here on Amazon. I checked into some of the many endorsements and 'green industry memberships' on Activeion's web site and it turns out that most of them are obtained simply by paying a fee. This is what is called a marketing based enterprise as opposed to a technology based enterprise. In simpler terms, American business is becoming more and more corrupt.

So, until all the facts are in, here are my suggestions:

For disinfecting, adding a few drops of bleach to your ordinary water spray bottle will work just great. As for green-ness, keep your green American Express card and your greenback American dollars in your pocket. And, whether you use short-acting bleach from the Ionator or the regular stuff from a Chlorox bottle, please remember you are dealing with a harsh, toxic chemical. Never spray in anyone's face or eyes, or on a baby or pet. Also, over time, heed Tennant's warming that it may be corrosive on some surfaces. If you use bleach all day, it is recommended that you wear rubber gloves. Amazon sells some very nice ones - and they come in a lovely GREEN color!

Update added August 15:

I appreciate that John Walden, Activeion CEO, has responded to this discussion with his recent post. I won't comment on his technical explanations, except to say that I am now thoroughly confused what exactly Activeion is claiming the Ionator principle to be (electrolytic? nanobubbles? electroporation?). The company's website now contains the statement that the liquid 'carries an electric field' to the bacteria, which is scientifically preposterous.

But the main point that distresses me is Mr. Walden's acknowledgement that executives of Activeion encouraged individuals with connections to the company to post reviews here on Amazon, as I had evidenced in Comment #3. Unfortunately I don't find his explanation of the innocence of this entirely satisfying. According to Federal Trade Commission rules, these individuals are supposed to have disclosed their relationships with the company, whether compensated or not. Moreover, it's not one or two reviews; of the 25 five-star reviews, all sound professionally written, none appear to have purchased the product from Amazon - and none have responded to my questions where they did obtain it. Why would legitimate reviewers not answer this harmless question? Of the four individuals who have been verified from public internet sources to be personal friends of the Chairman of Activeion (I suspect there are more), none responded to my questions. Were you aware that there are 'placement' companies who will write fake reviews to improve a product's standing on Amazon or Google? Folks, it's obvious that most of the glowing reviews here were written by an agency. It's dishonest and it's offensive. If you eliminate the suspect 'customer reviews,' the remainder average to a low score.

Finally, I note that a flurry of "not helpful" votes have been applied to my review here just in the last few days, after months when there were no new votes at all. I have no way of knowing if the company is behind this also. But of course 'unhelpful' votes make a review less visible by suppressing it in the listings.

Update added Oct, 2011: Product is no longer sold on Amazon. Also poor John Walden has been fired after less than a year as CEO, and in fact company no longer has a CEO, just a committee. And no new fake reviews since June!

Update added April, 2012: Quote from Activeion website:

"Since 2008, Activeion Cleaning Solutions LLC has been proud to heighten awareness of the benefits of chemical-free cleaning. Regrettably, while many customers continue to be satisfied with Activeion solutions, the business has been unable to achieve commercial viability during this time, and has exhausted its funding. As a result, Activeion will discontinue commercial operations effective April 18, 2012."

Final Update: After Activeion went out of business, the first and to my knowledge only objective scientific evaluation not paid for or commissioned by the company was published: Andersen et al, "Failure of Ionised Water Produced by Activeion Ionator to Kill Potential Harmful Bacteria," Microbial and Biochemical Technology, Vol. 2, p. 82, 2012. This was a study carried out by the Oslo University Hospital. They found not only that the Ionator did not work to sterilize bacteria but in fact spread them - it was worse than nothing!

I believe this entire marketing effort was a cynical scam from the get-go, and the investors always knew it didn't work. Sad.
107107 comments|461 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 19, 2010
Vine Customer Review of Free Product( What's this? )
When I first saw this product listed, I was skeptical. The claims sounded excessive and masked behind vague scientific justifications. I checked the company website to find an explanation by a certain person known for presenting science to young people. That persuaded me that perhaps there was something to it. People in my family have some sensitivities and I'd love to reduce the number of chemicals we use in our house. But after testing, I'm afraid that particular science presenter has slipped rather considerably in my estimation.

The claims have to do with the ability of ions to attach to certain substances that comprise dirt. That's probably true up to a point, but it appears that the effect may be too small to do any good. I used tap water as suggested by the company. Our Rocky Mountain tapwater is quite hard, so there's plenty in it to ionize.

Trying to be as scientific as possible, I set up several tests. I used my car windows, house windows, a stovetop, countertop, dishes and a cloth with a couple of winestains. On one half of each test patch I used the Ionator. On the other half I used pure water in a spray bottle. I did the best I could to administer equal amounts of water and apply the same physical effort for both ionized and regular water. In no case could I see any real difference.

I think there's real science here, but most of it is the science of psychology. Water does a pretty good job cleaning a lot of things. Since people are in the habit of using cleaning chemicals, they can easily be surprised by what water and a little elbow grease will do. Heightened expectations may also convince people to push a little harder and scrub a little longer.

So that can of Comet isn't going anywhere. There are many good cleaning products from companies like Seventh Generation which have a low chemical impact and are generally biodegradable. They work. I think the Ionator will soon be on that back shelf with the pyramids and magic healing crystals.

Addendum 4/22/2010:
In the three short days since I published this review, I've seen a lot of online discussion. The celebrity endorser I mentioned has been taking a beating. I didn't want to be part of unfairly damaging a reputation, so I decided to test just a little bit more. First thing was to turn the thing around and spray it right into my mouth. Tastes bad. Sprayed some into a glass and let it sit for a while; it tasted a little less bad. Clearly, something is going on. What would happen if I left the water on the cleaning surface a little longer? I performed the same test: Ionator water on one half, pure filtered water on the other. I sprayed a window blind above the kitchen sink (amazing what bits of stuff can stick there) as well as a stove top. I let the water rest for about a minute, and then scrubbed with the paper towels. The surfaces treated with Ionator were clean! Problem is, the surfaces treated with plain old water were equally clean. My conclusions in the main body of the review are unchanged: whatever the effect, it's too small to make any practical difference.
3434 comments|100 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 25, 2011
I ordered the Activeion with reservation after reading some of the reviews. But I hate cleaning with chemicals so bit the bullet ordering it with the thought I could always return it.

After I used it the first time, I knew I would love it. I made a pot of soup on my glass top stove which boiled over. It was quite a mess as the food spill was burnt on the stove top. After the heating element of the stove cooled, I sprayed the water in the Activeion on the mess and presto, with little srubbing, the burnt on food came off.

The Activeion is excellent on glass and granite tops. I've used it everywhere, tile floors, bathroom tile and fixtures, plantation shutters, furniture, screens. Just about everything I clean regularly. It also cleaned the rug where my cat got sick

I give this product high marks. If there is a downside, it drips a few drops of water after spraying but that's it. The sprayer is easy to use, th recharge lasts a few days and the water tank that you attach hold enough water to clean the entire kitchen.

I suggest that you order the cleaning cloth and scrubber that the company offer.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon May 17, 2010
Vine Customer Review of Free Product( What's this? )
I am in the process of moving into a new house; lots of cleaning involved, so it's nice to have the Ionator around to help. This is great for wood floors, windowsills, granite countertops, tile, glass, etc.

The Ionator is ergonomically designed and comfortable to use, overall aesthetic is clean and sorta futuristic, looks pleasing in the kitchen or wherever you decide to store it. When you squeeze the spray trigger button, a green LED lights up, which looks sorta cool.

The reservoir is small but lasts a long time since the spray is a very fine mist which smells faintly of -- ozone?

This device is neat, but I am pretty skeptical as to the scientific validity of its claims. A key claim is that the Ionator kills around 99.9% of microbes, when used as directed... which means spraying for a few seconds in the other direction before spraying the surface to be disinfected.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work, and have found no convincing information published online as to whether this really works... if it does, great, but I'm not sure I'm convinced.

Also, using water as a cleaning solution is a neat idea, but it falls short in some areas... namely, dissolving greasy residue or otherwise aiding in breaking up stains that aren't just dust or dirt. For wiping up dust from a granite counter-top, this is fine, but from getting greasy stains out of composite counters, or gluey residue off a wood floor, the Ionator's spray isn't that great; you're back to some serious elbow grease.

While the power capacity is great (have been using mine for weeks now on a single charge), I'm still unsure as to whether this device works any better than a simple water spray bottle. Again, it's neat to think "wow, I'm cleaning my counters with water!" but that's something you can do with a damp paper towel; not sure if you need a really expensive 'ionator' to do the job.

A key selling point is the 'green' aspect of using water vs. chemicals, but when you consider the manufacturing and materials that must've gone into the Ionator it gives one pause. Also, you can easily substitute vinegar for many household chemicals, so that's another green option that takes less manufacturing and WAY less $.

BOTTOM LINE: I got this for free and so can afford to use it as a tester. It's fun to use, and it is neat cleaning w/ water instead of chemicals. However, using the Ionator takes a lot of elbow grease if you're wiping up anything tougher than dust, and I am very doubtful as to its real anti-microbial capabilities. For its price, you're better off sticking with a spray bottle and maybe switching to white vinegar to replace more harmful chemicals.

I have a feeling wealthy 'green' families may switch to this because of its trendy appeal, but the rest of us are probably better off passing on the Ionator as a gimmick, at least until a) the price comes down or b) solid clinical studies are published supporting the Ionator's anti-microbial claims.
0Comment|11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 4, 2015
Nurse with Asthma and also "going green" to save our disposable world - I've read that others may not believe in its disinfecting properties, though ions are using the trace minerals in tap water - not purified water to create the static to burst the cell wall of have to use it to believe it!!!!!! If only for the cleaning properties alone!

I've loaned mine out to people so they can try it! They then loved it soo much they bought one for themselves and other family members.

Did you ever exhale to clean your glasses? They just sparkle!Well this does the same thing! The mirror in the bathroom looks like liquid metal after no elbow grease at all. There is never ever any link or dust left behind or even oil smudges from little fingers. I clean my computer screens, TV screens, cell phone, windows inside and out, detail the car, clean the scum off the shower, and shine up anything in seconds with this and a towel, cloth or rag bad materials.

No I don't work for the company. I'm work for the government as a RN. I live in Michigan. I'm no one special. I just know that when I spray it on mold starting in the shower on humid days, it just goes away. It even gets rid of that black mold in the corners of your windows.
I get sick from fumes of cleaning supplies so this is a miracle for me. On another note, no more buying 20 supplies to stock in my cabinet. Tap water is such a healthy renewable resource, too. No more bottles piling up in the land fills. (I make my own homemade liquid laundry soap,too...give that a try).
I've had my Ionator for close to 3 years.
My sister is getting one for her birthday. i went here to get one and was curious how other people loved it.
I was very disappointed at the waste of time and energy someone took to put this product down. Like I added bonus would be the disinfecting qualities....because the way it polishes and cleans is enough to want one...believe me!!!!!
They are all of of them what does that tell you? It's fantastic!!!!! :)
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 9, 2015
I am retired Director of Environmental Services for a Major Hospital. We tested the industrial version of the Ionator for six month in conjuction with our Infetion Control Department and it proved to have all the germ killing properties to include bleach, phenolics and other disinfectants. Our infection control department approved their use in common health care areas. We ended up purchasing 50, and our staff loved them. I purchase the home use unit and have been using for over for 3 years. The light is still green. the life of the unit is supposed to 5 years of normal use. When it ls no longer effective. I will purchase another. Its worth the money saved on chemicals. This we proved in hospital use of the industrial units.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 10, 2011
After looking over what this device does, it is a very expensive substitute for home-made sanitizer using bleach and water. As for cleaning, I think many people are discovering that water does a good job by itself. For proteins and fats, you'll need a detergent or soap, however. For stubborn stains, you'll need higher concentrations of bleach or peroxide than this device can generate. It is a very intriguing piece of technology, but the price point and limitations relegate it to a specialty market.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 18, 2010
Vine Customer Review of Free Product( What's this? )
Based on what I can see, it doesn't do much of anything. It is a cool spray bottle, but from my perspective, nothing more. It seems as if they're marketing it as a new groundbreaking, high tech, green product. That would be fantastic if only it worked.

I created a couple of red wine rings on my countertop and this did not clean the rings any better than tap water.

I also used it on glass and other hard surfaces and then used a spray bottle containing our hard San Diego tap water and I did not notice any difference between the Ionator water and tap water.

Today, I sprayed down 2 clean glasses and let them air dry. One was sprayed down with tap water from the sink and the other was sprayed with water from the Ionator. I expected the water from the Ionator to dry with fewer spots, but that was not the case. Both glasses were quite spotted and it appeared that the glass sprayed with treated water from the Ionator was even more badly spotted than the other.

Later, I conducted yet another test. I sprayed half my greasy BBQ grill with water from the Ionator and the other half with tap water to see if I noticed any difference in their cleaning properties. While both did in fact clean the grill, you've probably already guessed that there was no observable difference whatsoever.

This is a lot of money to spend on a device like this. I'm going to continue to test it to see if I'm missing something and if that proves to be the case, then I will amend my comments, be they positive or negative. But frankly, so far I am unable to see how this device does much of anything besides providing a nice mist that can cool you down on a hot day. That's worth something, but it's not worth anything close to the asking price, in my opinion.

In my view, this product does not remotely approach expectations. I'm very disappointed in the Ionator. Save your money and don't throw out those cleaners just yet.
1616 comments|37 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 26, 2012
I just read a review by someone that seems very scientific and through in his review of the product. I am no scientist or any kind of expert or in anyway related to this company or any of its employees. All I can do is tell my experience. I have a house in Zürich, Switzerland and one in Orlando, Florida. A friend of mine in Switzerland recommended this product to me for cleaning my granite and stainless steel kitchen cabinets. I purchased it for 500 swiss francs which is more than the dollar, but I love the product. It cleans the granite with no streaks or residue that leaves a dull shine. My stainless steel cabinets, crazy to even have them but I purchased this house from someone else and every single finger print shows. My activeion cleans each fingerprint without leaving a dull shine, or residue behind. I do not smell any bleach smell at all. I am disappointed to learn that it is a mild version of bleach as I am very organic. My only change will be to add some gloves while using the product. I came across this discussion because I wanted to purchase the product for my house in Orlando, I am somewhat sad that it is not available. As a user I can just say that I love this machine. It is one of the best things that I have found.
11 comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 25, 2012
I have been using my mother-in-laws for a month now and I love it. I have cleaned everything with it and took it to my carpet as a last dit effort before calling the carpet cleaner. my dog had been marking my entertainment center and on carpet for months. I would clean up ASAP when spots were found, but could not get the smell out. if you have a dog you know that smell. I cleaned the area 3-4 different times and the smell is gone. YES GONE!!! My husband whos plan was to get rid of dog.... smelt carpet and could not belive smell is gone and has stayed gone, going on two weeks. I added nothing to carpet just the ionator and white cloth and it pulled stain and smell out.. I have taken it to my oak entertainment center hopes of saving it, but with wood you never no! I have cleaned it 5-6 times with ionator and it is a big difference the smell is 95 percent gone. with wood it takes a bit to dry so in my book it works! and I have tried everything on these two iitems/areas to get smell out. price is high but with pets it cheaper then new carpet. ps- dog marking is under control now, but if problems arise, I know this thing will clean it up.

also took lime green stain out of light colored carpet from kids.

works great on anything smelly. I spray curtains, shower curtain, bed spreads, furnature, works great in bathroom, tub I did need a cleaner, but I think that is normal. I don't think we can cut cleaning products out completly but this is great to cut back on most that a person uses.

Rating 4 stars only because of price!!! I hope they can make it more affordable, because I am going to buy one and I think the price is to high.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Please make sure that you've entered a valid question. You can edit your question or post anyway.
Please enter a question.
See all 3 answered questions

Customers also viewed these items

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.