CDC does not provide recommendations for, or against, any manufacturer or product. There are numerous technologies being heavily marketed to provide air cleaning during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Common among these are ionization, dry hydrogen peroxide, and chemical fogging disinfection. Some products on the market include combinations of these technologies. These products generate ions, reactive oxidative species (ROS, which are marketed using many names), or chemicals into the air as part of the air cleaning process. People in spaces treated by these products are also exposed to these ions, ROS, or chemicals. While variations of these technologies have been around for decades, relative to other air cleaning or disinfection methods, they have a less-documented track record when it comes to cleaning/disinfecting large and fast volumes of moving air within heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems or even inside individual rooms. This does not necessarily imply the technologies do not work as advertised. However, in the absence of an established body of peer-reviewed evidence showing proven efficacy and safety under as-used conditions, the technologies are still considered by many to be “emerging.” As with all emerging technologies, consumers are encouraged to exercise caution and to do their homework. Registration alone, with national or local authorities, does not always imply product efficacy or safety. Consumers should research the technology, attempting to match any specific claims against the intended use of the product. Consumers should request testing data that quantitively demonstrates a clear protective benefit and occupant safety under conditions consistent with the intended use. When considering air cleaning technologies that potentially or intentionally expose building occupants, the safety data should be applicable to all occupants, including those with health conditions that could be aggravated by the air treatment. In transient spaces, where average exposures to the public may be temporary, it is important to also consider occupational exposures for workers that must spend prolonged periods in the space. Preferably, the documented performance data under as-used conditions should be available from multiple sources, some of which should be independent, third-party sources. Unsubstantiated claims of performance or limited case studies with only one device in one room and no reference controls should be questioned. At a minimum, when considering the acquisition and use of products with technology that may generate ozone, verify that the equipment meets UL 867 standard certification (Standard for Electrostatic Air Cleaners) for production of acceptable levels of ozone, or preferably UL 2998 standard certification (Environmental Claim Validation Procedure (ECVP) for Zero Ozone Emissions from Air Cleaners) which is intended to validate that no ozone is produced.