Replication and peer review are required to be very careful about believing small effect sizes that are inconsistent across populations which are so common with papers in biology and medicine measuring the effect of X on Y when it's entirely believable that the study might just be statistical error or cherry picking.
This study is measuring something pretty obvious and it's more akin to you demanding replication and peer review to your bathroom scale. There might be room for some additional studies but the conclusions here "surface areas for VOCs to stick to are much bigger than this simplified model" don't really need to be doubted all that much.
There's actually a decent amount of work recently in this space, some of it motivated by the wildfires.
Here's another recent paper with similar findings.
The persistence of smoke VOCs indoors: Partitioning, surface cleaning, and air cleaning in a smoke-contaminated house
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10575580/
colechristensen|4 months ago
Replication and peer review are required to be very careful about believing small effect sizes that are inconsistent across populations which are so common with papers in biology and medicine measuring the effect of X on Y when it's entirely believable that the study might just be statistical error or cherry picking.
This study is measuring something pretty obvious and it's more akin to you demanding replication and peer review to your bathroom scale. There might be room for some additional studies but the conclusions here "surface areas for VOCs to stick to are much bigger than this simplified model" don't really need to be doubted all that much.
syawaworht|4 months ago
Here's another recent paper with similar findings. The persistence of smoke VOCs indoors: Partitioning, surface cleaning, and air cleaning in a smoke-contaminated house https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10575580/