Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

People Hate Daylight Saving. Science Tells Us Why.

News Feed
Monday, March 11, 2024

In the summer of 2017, when communication professor Jeffery Gentry moved from Oklahoma to accept a position at Eastern New Mexico University, he was pleasantly surprised to find it easier to get up in the morning. The difference, he realized, was early morning light. On September mornings in Portales, New Mexico, Gentry rose with the sun at around 6:30 a.m., but at that time of day in Oklahoma, it was still dark.As the Earth rotates, the sun reaches the eastern edge of a time zone first, with sunrise and sunset occurring progressively later as you move west. Gentry’s move had taken him from the western side of Central Time in Oklahoma to the eastern edge of Mountain Time. Following his curiosity into the scientific literature, he discovered the field of chronobiology, the study of biological rhythms, such as how cycles of daylight and dark affect living things. “I really just stumbled upon it from being a guinea pig in my own experiment,” he said.In 2022, Gentry and an interdisciplinary team of colleagues added to that body of research, publishing a study in the journal Time & Society that showed the rate of fatal motor-vehicle accidents was highest for people living in the far west of a time zone, where the sun rises and sets at least an hour later than on the eastern side. Chronobiology research shows that longer evening light can keep people up later and that, as Gentry found, morning darkness can make it harder to get going for work or school. Western-edge folks may suffer more deadly car wrecks, the team theorized, because they are commuting in the dark while sleep deprived and not fully alert.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.With all the hullabaloo over the health and safety of setting clocks forward an hour in the spring for Daylight Saving Time (DST) and back in the fall with Standard Time (ST), could where you live in a time zone actually have a more profound effect? I asked Gentry. “That’s very possible,” he said.Time researchers make this point, and research results and public opinion polls reflect it: Something is awry about the way we mark time. Those problems start with the annual toggle between DST and ST. In these days of sharp division, poll after poll finds most people unified in their dislike of switching clocks back and forth with the season. However, the question of whether to stick with ST or DST year-round once again sends people to different camps.Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST, or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said. On the other hand, public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic tends to favor permanent DST — and many politicians agree — perhaps because of the positive associations with summer sunshine. (A bill to make that switch passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 2022, but then stalled in the House; a new version was recently reintroduced.)Some scientists have fired back that such a move would be a grave mistake: The German newspaper Die Welt quoted pioneering chronobiologist and sleep researcher Till Roenneberg warning that permanent DST would make Europeans “dicker, dümmer und grantiger” (fatter, dumber, and grumpier).The conflict over DST versus ST makes for grabby headlines and engaging social media posts. But focusing on the clash misses the bigger questions about how we choose to mark time. A close look at the research reveals not only uncertainties about the effects of DST, but also about other factors, such as how time zones are drawn and, possibly most important, how structuring our schedules around light and dark could have a profound impact on health and safety.“We absolutely need to think about our time,” said Beth Malow, a neurologist and director of the sleep division at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “And how are we going to actually figure this out as a country?”The 24-hour cycle of light and dark created by the Earth’s rotation is the force that rules our lives. Homer’s rosy-fingered dawn is what chronobiologists call a zeitgeber, German for “time giver” — a natural signal that touches off cyclical processes in the body governing our internal clocks. Morning light, for example, cues our bodies to ramp up production of cortisol, a hormone that helps us feel awake and alert. Meanwhile, as cortisol dwindles through the evening, darkness triggers the sleep-promoting hormone melatonin.In the language of chronobiologists, the biological clock rhythms of humans and other animals are entrained, or synchronized, to the solar clock.Humans have devised schemes such as time zones and Daylight Saving Time to optimize their interactions with these natural cycles of light and dark. But the match between time policy and the zeitgeber is often imperfect.When we set clocks forward with DST in the spring, many people suddenly have to get up for school or work before the light has jumpstarted physiological processes associated with wakefulness. Cortisol levels peak about an hour later during DST according to a 2014 Australian study. Then, at the other end of the day, people have to go to bed before hours of darkness have signaled to their body that it’s time to sleep.The abrupt change, especially to DST in the spring, can wreak havoc on health and safety. In a 2020 commentary for JAMA Neurology, Beth Malow and colleagues outline evidence for negative health effects during the DST transition, including less and poorer quality sleep, an increased risk of stroke and heart attack, and a decreased sense of well-being, particularly for men who work full time.In addition, although the research on road safety is mixed, some studies find an uptick in traffic accidents and fatalities in the days after the DST switch.However, those bad effects are fleeting. The longer-term impact of DST is hard to research because the amount of sunlight changes with the seasons. Only one study has directly compared permanent DST to permanent ST: a seven-year study of students aged 10 to 24 living in northwestern Russia when the government mandated a switch from seasonal DST to year-around DST in 2011 — and then switched again, to permanent ST, in 2014.Permanent DST meant that the sun also rose and set later in the winter. Results published in 2017 associated year-round DST with a greater likelihood of feeling down in the winter as well as sleeping later on weekends, a phenomenon known as social jet lag. Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues coined the term nearly two decades ago to describe the chronic sleep deprivation that people experience when they have to get up for school or work before they would awaken naturally.“Social jet lag is the umbrella term for not being able to live in sync with one’s biological time,” said Roenneberg. He likens wakening with an alarm to stopping the washing machine before the cycle is complete: “All we get is wet and dirty laundry,” he said. “And that’s what we get in our body.”Social jet lag is an artifact of our modern world. Nearly half of U.S. adults sleep at least an hour later when they have the chance, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open in 2022. And research suggests that the phenomenon is especially pronounced in adolescents due to both biology — melatonin release tends to be delayed in that age group, for example — and environmental factors such as late nights on electronics and early school-start times.Research by Roenneberg and others have associated social jet lag — and the sleep deprivation it reflects — with smoking and consuming higher amounts of alcohol and caffeine as well as a range of ill health effects including obesity, metabolic syndrome (a group of health conditions that increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes), risk factors for heart disease, and depression. Studies have also linked social jet lag to worse academic performance for high school and college students.In a thorough review, Roenneberg and colleagues argue that by pushing sunrise and sunset an hour later, permanent DST is bound to worsen social jet lag. But the Russian study is the only direct evidence of that link, and it’s uncertain whether those effects, which the Russian researchers characterize as “small or very small,” apply to older age groups or people living where the cycles of light and dark are less extreme. In Vorkuta, one of three cities in the study, for example, the sun never rises for a time in the winter and never sets for six weeks in the summer.Like all of the researchers I spoke with for this story, Derk-Jan Dijk, a sleep and physiology professor at the University of Surrey in England, sees potential harm in permanently setting our clocks an hour ahead because in the winter many people would have to start their day in darkness. “Any schedule that implies that you have to get up before sunrise may cause problems,” said Dijk. But he also doesn’t like to overstate the case against DST, especially when we observe it seasonally.“The entire discussion about Daylight Saving Time and how bad it is upsets me a little bit,” he told me. The slight effects seen during the transition to DST in the spring and then back to ST in the autumn, quickly disappear he noted. “There is no good evidence that during the entire summer, when we are on Daylight Saving Time, everything is worse,” he said. “I don’t think the evidence is there.”Polls show that we generally dislike mucking with time twice a year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans want to eliminate the changing of clocks, according to a nationally representative survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted by The Economist magazine and market research company YouGov in 2021.Permanent DST enjoys bipartisan support among many political leaders in the U.S. In a document supporting the Sunshine Protection Act, Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, cites evidence that DST promotes health, safety, recreation, commerce, and energy savings. However, some of that research focuses on the harms of switching back and forth, so one could also use it to support year-around ST.In other cases, Rubio cherry picks studies showing benefits to DST while ignoring contradictory research. A 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service prepared for members of the U.S. Congress did not find substantial evidence that DST improves health and safety or that it reduces energy consumption by much — if at all.And, in drumming up supportive evidence, the permanent DST camp hits the same wall as the eliminate DST camp: Researchers haven’t sufficiently studied the effects of year-around DST.In a controversial 2020 perspective for the journal Clocks & Sleep, sleep scientists Christina Blume and Manuel Schabus call on the scientific establishment to own up to uncertainties in the existing data and to do the research needed to fill those holes. Still, even Blume acknowledges that taken as a whole, the available data makes a decent case that changing clocks to shift light from the morning to the evening could be bad for our health and safety.“We all agree as researchers that the safer option is to go for perennial Standard Time,” said Blume, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Basel in Switzerland.The nonprofit organization Save Standard Time lists endorsements from more than 30 sleep-science and medical organizations — including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Neurology among others — in addition to individual scientists and researchers.Here, I feel compelled to note that the last time we tried permanent DST, it didn’t go well. In attempt to conserve energy, Congress established a trial period of year-round DST in late 1973. But public approval dropped precipitously as Americans faced the reality of dark winter mornings. By October 1974, the country had reverted to four months of yearly ST.The disconnect between the perception and reality arises because of how we think and talk about the seasons and time change, said neurologist Malow, who testified before the U.S. Congress about the benefits of permanent ST. “People have associated being on standard time, with it being cold and winter and dark,” she said. Meanwhile “springing forward” coincides with the return of warmer, longer days.But, of course, DST doesn’t buy you more light. Winter days are short and summer days are long regardless of how you mark time.In addition to DST, other factors about how we control light and time in our environment — how we draw time zones, use artificial light, and set school and work schedules — affect our relationship to the solar clock as well as health and safety.To understand time zones, it helps to go back to basic geography. The Earth rotates all the way around in 24 hours. Imagine longitude lines running north and south separating the globe into 24 segments, each marking one hour’s rotation. Time zones roughly follow those longitude lines. As the Earth rotates, the sun rises and sets first on the eastern edge of a time zone, and then about an hour later on the western edge.Things gets interesting on either side of a time-zone boundary, where the sun position is essentially the same, but the clock time is different. In late January, for example, the sun sets around 6:10 p.m. in Columbus, Georgia in Eastern Time, but at 5:10 p.m. just over the time-zone border in Auburn, Alabama.People living on the late-sunset side of a time-zone border, like those in Columbus, tend to go to bed later, sleeping an average of around 20 minutes less each night than those on the early-sunset side, like those in Auburn, according to a 2019 study published in the Journal of Health Economics. Drawing on large national surveys and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that health outcomes associated with sleep deficiency and social jet lag were worse for the late-sunset folks. Their wages were also about 3 percent lower than those of early-sunset people, who, better rested, were presumably more productive.“The effects are larger when you zoom in really close the border,” said study co-author Osea Giuntella, an economics professor at the University of Pittsburgh.Seasonal changes, including the shift to DST in the spring, didn’t have a significant effect. Giuntella said that it’s possible that where you live in a time zone could have a bigger effect than DST, but he couldn’t be sure because DST wasn’t a focus of the study. That would be harder to study, he noted, as the time change typically affects people on both sides of a time-zone border. (Arizona is the only state in the continental U.S. that does not observe DST.)Another tricky aspect of time zones is that they don’t strictly adhere to longitude lines, but instead meander to accommodate city and state boundaries. In the U.S., all the time zones except Pacific Time encompass areas west of what would be the natural time-zone boundary. Communication professor Jeffery Gentry and a team that included Eastern New Mexico University professors with expertise in geography, biology, and education have dubbed those regions west of the geographic time zone “eccentric time localities,” or ETLs.In these ETLs, sunrise and sunset time may occur more than an hour later than the eastern side of the time zone. For example, geographically, Marquette, Mich., should be in Central Time, but instead the city lies in an ETL in Eastern Time. In late October, the sun rises at around 7:10 a.m. Eastern Time in Bangor, Maine, but not until around 8:30 a.m. in Marquette.Gentry and colleague’s analysis of more than 400,000 fatal traffic accidents that occurred between 2006 and 2017 showed that ETL residents suffered a 22 percent higher fatality rate than those living elsewhere in the time zone. If the death rate in ETLs had been the same as the rest of the time zone, they would have experienced about 15,000 fewer fatalities over 12 years, according to the analysis.The most likely explanation, according to the researchers, is that people in ETLs are forced to keep schedules that are out of sync with cues from the solar clock — what the authors call “dysfunctional social time.” Compared to people living with more light in the morning and less in the evening, Gentry told me, ETL dwellers may not sleep as long or as well and may be less sharp for their morning commute.The authors accounted for differences in urban and rural areas, but not for other factors linked to traffic accidents such as speed limits, drunk driving, and road conditions. Still, Gentry said that the strength of the study is the size and completeness of the data set, meaning that small regional differences are unlikely to affect the overall results. “We eliminated everything we could and we still have a pretty stark number here,” said Gentry.Gentry would like to see time zones redrawn. But other policy fixes could help as well. The authors didn’t explore whether accidents varied by season, but they found evidence from other research strong enough to presume that DST magnifies the potential harm of living in an ETL. Gentry said that notion leaves him hopeful because he views DST as simple enough to fix. “I’m more positive that if Daylight Saving Time were eliminated, that we might save quite a few lives.”The focus on issues like DST and time zones, some researchers say, can overlook another key part of the time policy puzzle.In our artificially lit world, our internal clocks are affected by far more than sunrise and sunset. No doubt, the sun is the strongest zeitgeber, but artificial light also affects our internal clocks, said sleep researcher Derk-Jan Dijk. He dismissed the notion that humans are entrained solely to the sun as a romantic idea. “We, to a large extent, have divorced our activity schedules from the natural light-dark cycle,” he said.A body of research shows that even dim light can suppress melatonin production and delay sleep. Blue light from fluorescent lights and our ubiquitous screens, which has the shortest wavelength and highest energy of light that the human eye can see, has a particularly powerful effect on circadian rhythms.Dijk is frustrated that focus on DST overlooks harder questions about the built environment and how we choose to live and work. “The more general question is how the heck do we actually come up with our work schedules and social schedules, which basically determine to what extent we make use of natural light versus man-made light?” said Dijk. Aligning our sleep and work schedules with the light that is available for free would not only be better for us, but, because we’d use less electricity to power devices late into the night, better for the planet.Doing so goes far beyond the details of the daylight saving debate — although it involves changes that are not so easily legislated by Congress.Like many other researchers, Dijk advocates for adjusting school-start times and allowing flexible work schedules so that people don’t have to get up before sunrise. In the time-zone study by Giuntella and colleagues, for example, when people could sleep later in the morning — because they were unemployed or started work later — they didn’t seem to experience the negative effects of living with later sunsets.And, although it sounds like a radical idea, states could also adjust time-zone boundaries. “I don’t think we want 10 time zones, but maybe we add one for the Northeast,” said Malow. Because the New England states are so far east, winter sunsets come early — before 4 p.m. in December in parts of Maine.And then there is the question of whether so-called ETLs would better align with the time zone to their west. For example, Malow lives in the Nashville area in Central Time, but part of the state juts into Eastern time. “If we could get Eastern Tennessee into Central Time, that would solve a lot of problems,” she said. As it is, if the country shifts to permanent DST, the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville wouldn’t see the sun until nearly 9 a.m. in January or darkness until nearly 10 p.m. in June.Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues have also suggested redrawing time-zone boundaries in Europe, which in some cases are even more skewed than those in the U.S.Ideally, Malow would like to see all of the above — flexible schedules, adjusted time zones, and permanent ST. “It’s important to look at the whole picture, and for us to figure something out,” said Malow. She’s somewhat hopeful as the discussions about how we mark time are not particularly partisan and changes wouldn’t cost much if anything.It could even bring people together across the political divide, said Malow. “Wouldn’t that be great?” she said. “Stopping the clock back and forth could be the great unifier in our country.”This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Something is awry about the way we mark time. Can research and policy changes help us reset the clocks?

In the summer of 2017, when communication professor Jeffery Gentry moved from Oklahoma to accept a position at Eastern New Mexico University, he was pleasantly surprised to find it easier to get up in the morning. The difference, he realized, was early morning light. On September mornings in Portales, New Mexico, Gentry rose with the sun at around 6:30 a.m., but at that time of day in Oklahoma, it was still dark.

As the Earth rotates, the sun reaches the eastern edge of a time zone first, with sunrise and sunset occurring progressively later as you move west. Gentry’s move had taken him from the western side of Central Time in Oklahoma to the eastern edge of Mountain Time. Following his curiosity into the scientific literature, he discovered the field of chronobiology, the study of biological rhythms, such as how cycles of daylight and dark affect living things. “I really just stumbled upon it from being a guinea pig in my own experiment,” he said.

In 2022, Gentry and an interdisciplinary team of colleagues added to that body of research, publishing a study in the journal Time & Society that showed the rate of fatal motor-vehicle accidents was highest for people living in the far west of a time zone, where the sun rises and sets at least an hour later than on the eastern side. Chronobiology research shows that longer evening light can keep people up later and that, as Gentry found, morning darkness can make it harder to get going for work or school. Western-edge folks may suffer more deadly car wrecks, the team theorized, because they are commuting in the dark while sleep deprived and not fully alert.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


With all the hullabaloo over the health and safety of setting clocks forward an hour in the spring for Daylight Saving Time (DST) and back in the fall with Standard Time (ST), could where you live in a time zone actually have a more profound effect? I asked Gentry. “That’s very possible,” he said.

Time researchers make this point, and research results and public opinion polls reflect it: Something is awry about the way we mark time. Those problems start with the annual toggle between DST and ST. In these days of sharp division, poll after poll finds most people unified in their dislike of switching clocks back and forth with the season. However, the question of whether to stick with ST or DST year-round once again sends people to different camps.

Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST, or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said. On the other hand, public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic tends to favor permanent DST — and many politicians agree — perhaps because of the positive associations with summer sunshine. (A bill to make that switch passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 2022, but then stalled in the House; a new version was recently reintroduced.)

Some scientists have fired back that such a move would be a grave mistake: The German newspaper Die Welt quoted pioneering chronobiologist and sleep researcher Till Roenneberg warning that permanent DST would make Europeans “dicker, dümmer und grantiger” (fatter, dumber, and grumpier).

The conflict over DST versus ST makes for grabby headlines and engaging social media posts. But focusing on the clash misses the bigger questions about how we choose to mark time. A close look at the research reveals not only uncertainties about the effects of DST, but also about other factors, such as how time zones are drawn and, possibly most important, how structuring our schedules around light and dark could have a profound impact on health and safety.

“We absolutely need to think about our time,” said Beth Malow, a neurologist and director of the sleep division at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “And how are we going to actually figure this out as a country?”

The 24-hour cycle of light and dark created by the Earth’s rotation is the force that rules our lives. Homer’s rosy-fingered dawn is what chronobiologists call a zeitgeber, German for “time giver” — a natural signal that touches off cyclical processes in the body governing our internal clocks. Morning light, for example, cues our bodies to ramp up production of cortisol, a hormone that helps us feel awake and alert. Meanwhile, as cortisol dwindles through the evening, darkness triggers the sleep-promoting hormone melatonin.

In the language of chronobiologists, the biological clock rhythms of humans and other animals are entrained, or synchronized, to the solar clock.

Humans have devised schemes such as time zones and Daylight Saving Time to optimize their interactions with these natural cycles of light and dark. But the match between time policy and the zeitgeber is often imperfect.

When we set clocks forward with DST in the spring, many people suddenly have to get up for school or work before the light has jumpstarted physiological processes associated with wakefulness. Cortisol levels peak about an hour later during DST according to a 2014 Australian study. Then, at the other end of the day, people have to go to bed before hours of darkness have signaled to their body that it’s time to sleep.

The abrupt change, especially to DST in the spring, can wreak havoc on health and safety. In a 2020 commentary for JAMA Neurology, Beth Malow and colleagues outline evidence for negative health effects during the DST transition, including less and poorer quality sleep, an increased risk of stroke and heart attack, and a decreased sense of well-being, particularly for men who work full time.

In addition, although the research on road safety is mixed, some studies find an uptick in traffic accidents and fatalities in the days after the DST switch.

However, those bad effects are fleeting. The longer-term impact of DST is hard to research because the amount of sunlight changes with the seasons. Only one study has directly compared permanent DST to permanent ST: a seven-year study of students aged 10 to 24 living in northwestern Russia when the government mandated a switch from seasonal DST to year-around DST in 2011 — and then switched again, to permanent ST, in 2014.

Permanent DST meant that the sun also rose and set later in the winter. Results published in 2017 associated year-round DST with a greater likelihood of feeling down in the winter as well as sleeping later on weekends, a phenomenon known as social jet lag. Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues coined the term nearly two decades ago to describe the chronic sleep deprivation that people experience when they have to get up for school or work before they would awaken naturally.

“Social jet lag is the umbrella term for not being able to live in sync with one’s biological time,” said Roenneberg. He likens wakening with an alarm to stopping the washing machine before the cycle is complete: “All we get is wet and dirty laundry,” he said. “And that’s what we get in our body.”

Social jet lag is an artifact of our modern world. Nearly half of U.S. adults sleep at least an hour later when they have the chance, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open in 2022. And research suggests that the phenomenon is especially pronounced in adolescents due to both biology — melatonin release tends to be delayed in that age group, for example — and environmental factors such as late nights on electronics and early school-start times.

Research by Roenneberg and others have associated social jet lag — and the sleep deprivation it reflects — with smoking and consuming higher amounts of alcohol and caffeine as well as a range of ill health effects including obesity, metabolic syndrome (a group of health conditions that increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes), risk factors for heart disease, and depression. Studies have also linked social jet lag to worse academic performance for high school and college students.

In a thorough review, Roenneberg and colleagues argue that by pushing sunrise and sunset an hour later, permanent DST is bound to worsen social jet lag. But the Russian study is the only direct evidence of that link, and it’s uncertain whether those effects, which the Russian researchers characterize as “small or very small,” apply to older age groups or people living where the cycles of light and dark are less extreme. In Vorkuta, one of three cities in the study, for example, the sun never rises for a time in the winter and never sets for six weeks in the summer.

Like all of the researchers I spoke with for this story, Derk-Jan Dijk, a sleep and physiology professor at the University of Surrey in England, sees potential harm in permanently setting our clocks an hour ahead because in the winter many people would have to start their day in darkness. “Any schedule that implies that you have to get up before sunrise may cause problems,” said Dijk. But he also doesn’t like to overstate the case against DST, especially when we observe it seasonally.

“The entire discussion about Daylight Saving Time and how bad it is upsets me a little bit,” he told me. The slight effects seen during the transition to DST in the spring and then back to ST in the autumn, quickly disappear he noted. “There is no good evidence that during the entire summer, when we are on Daylight Saving Time, everything is worse,” he said. “I don’t think the evidence is there.”

Polls show that we generally dislike mucking with time twice a year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans want to eliminate the changing of clocks, according to a nationally representative survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted by The Economist magazine and market research company YouGov in 2021.

Permanent DST enjoys bipartisan support among many political leaders in the U.S. In a document supporting the Sunshine Protection Act, Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, cites evidence that DST promotes health, safety, recreation, commerce, and energy savings. However, some of that research focuses on the harms of switching back and forth, so one could also use it to support year-around ST.

In other cases, Rubio cherry picks studies showing benefits to DST while ignoring contradictory research. A 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service prepared for members of the U.S. Congress did not find substantial evidence that DST improves health and safety or that it reduces energy consumption by much — if at all.

And, in drumming up supportive evidence, the permanent DST camp hits the same wall as the eliminate DST camp: Researchers haven’t sufficiently studied the effects of year-around DST.

In a controversial 2020 perspective for the journal Clocks & Sleep, sleep scientists Christina Blume and Manuel Schabus call on the scientific establishment to own up to uncertainties in the existing data and to do the research needed to fill those holes. Still, even Blume acknowledges that taken as a whole, the available data makes a decent case that changing clocks to shift light from the morning to the evening could be bad for our health and safety.

“We all agree as researchers that the safer option is to go for perennial Standard Time,” said Blume, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Basel in Switzerland.

The nonprofit organization Save Standard Time lists endorsements from more than 30 sleep-science and medical organizations — including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Neurology among others — in addition to individual scientists and researchers.

Here, I feel compelled to note that the last time we tried permanent DST, it didn’t go well. In attempt to conserve energy, Congress established a trial period of year-round DST in late 1973. But public approval dropped precipitously as Americans faced the reality of dark winter mornings. By October 1974, the country had reverted to four months of yearly ST.

The disconnect between the perception and reality arises because of how we think and talk about the seasons and time change, said neurologist Malow, who testified before the U.S. Congress about the benefits of permanent ST. “People have associated being on standard time, with it being cold and winter and dark,” she said. Meanwhile “springing forward” coincides with the return of warmer, longer days.

But, of course, DST doesn’t buy you more light. Winter days are short and summer days are long regardless of how you mark time.

In addition to DST, other factors about how we control light and time in our environment — how we draw time zones, use artificial light, and set school and work schedules — affect our relationship to the solar clock as well as health and safety.

To understand time zones, it helps to go back to basic geography. The Earth rotates all the way around in 24 hours. Imagine longitude lines running north and south separating the globe into 24 segments, each marking one hour’s rotation. Time zones roughly follow those longitude lines. As the Earth rotates, the sun rises and sets first on the eastern edge of a time zone, and then about an hour later on the western edge.

Things gets interesting on either side of a time-zone boundary, where the sun position is essentially the same, but the clock time is different. In late January, for example, the sun sets around 6:10 p.m. in Columbus, Georgia in Eastern Time, but at 5:10 p.m. just over the time-zone border in Auburn, Alabama.

People living on the late-sunset side of a time-zone border, like those in Columbus, tend to go to bed later, sleeping an average of around 20 minutes less each night than those on the early-sunset side, like those in Auburn, according to a 2019 study published in the Journal of Health Economics. Drawing on large national surveys and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that health outcomes associated with sleep deficiency and social jet lag were worse for the late-sunset folks. Their wages were also about 3 percent lower than those of early-sunset people, who, better rested, were presumably more productive.

“The effects are larger when you zoom in really close the border,” said study co-author Osea Giuntella, an economics professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Seasonal changes, including the shift to DST in the spring, didn’t have a significant effect. Giuntella said that it’s possible that where you live in a time zone could have a bigger effect than DST, but he couldn’t be sure because DST wasn’t a focus of the study. That would be harder to study, he noted, as the time change typically affects people on both sides of a time-zone border. (Arizona is the only state in the continental U.S. that does not observe DST.)

Another tricky aspect of time zones is that they don’t strictly adhere to longitude lines, but instead meander to accommodate city and state boundaries. In the U.S., all the time zones except Pacific Time encompass areas west of what would be the natural time-zone boundary. Communication professor Jeffery Gentry and a team that included Eastern New Mexico University professors with expertise in geography, biology, and education have dubbed those regions west of the geographic time zone “eccentric time localities,” or ETLs.

In these ETLs, sunrise and sunset time may occur more than an hour later than the eastern side of the time zone. For example, geographically, Marquette, Mich., should be in Central Time, but instead the city lies in an ETL in Eastern Time. In late October, the sun rises at around 7:10 a.m. Eastern Time in Bangor, Maine, but not until around 8:30 a.m. in Marquette.

Gentry and colleague’s analysis of more than 400,000 fatal traffic accidents that occurred between 2006 and 2017 showed that ETL residents suffered a 22 percent higher fatality rate than those living elsewhere in the time zone. If the death rate in ETLs had been the same as the rest of the time zone, they would have experienced about 15,000 fewer fatalities over 12 years, according to the analysis.

The most likely explanation, according to the researchers, is that people in ETLs are forced to keep schedules that are out of sync with cues from the solar clock — what the authors call “dysfunctional social time.” Compared to people living with more light in the morning and less in the evening, Gentry told me, ETL dwellers may not sleep as long or as well and may be less sharp for their morning commute.

The authors accounted for differences in urban and rural areas, but not for other factors linked to traffic accidents such as speed limits, drunk driving, and road conditions. Still, Gentry said that the strength of the study is the size and completeness of the data set, meaning that small regional differences are unlikely to affect the overall results. “We eliminated everything we could and we still have a pretty stark number here,” said Gentry.

Gentry would like to see time zones redrawn. But other policy fixes could help as well. The authors didn’t explore whether accidents varied by season, but they found evidence from other research strong enough to presume that DST magnifies the potential harm of living in an ETL. Gentry said that notion leaves him hopeful because he views DST as simple enough to fix. “I’m more positive that if Daylight Saving Time were eliminated, that we might save quite a few lives.”

The focus on issues like DST and time zones, some researchers say, can overlook another key part of the time policy puzzle.

In our artificially lit world, our internal clocks are affected by far more than sunrise and sunset. No doubt, the sun is the strongest zeitgeber, but artificial light also affects our internal clocks, said sleep researcher Derk-Jan Dijk. He dismissed the notion that humans are entrained solely to the sun as a romantic idea. “We, to a large extent, have divorced our activity schedules from the natural light-dark cycle,” he said.

A body of research shows that even dim light can suppress melatonin production and delay sleep. Blue light from fluorescent lights and our ubiquitous screens, which has the shortest wavelength and highest energy of light that the human eye can see, has a particularly powerful effect on circadian rhythms.

Dijk is frustrated that focus on DST overlooks harder questions about the built environment and how we choose to live and work. “The more general question is how the heck do we actually come up with our work schedules and social schedules, which basically determine to what extent we make use of natural light versus man-made light?” said Dijk. Aligning our sleep and work schedules with the light that is available for free would not only be better for us, but, because we’d use less electricity to power devices late into the night, better for the planet.

Doing so goes far beyond the details of the daylight saving debate — although it involves changes that are not so easily legislated by Congress.

Like many other researchers, Dijk advocates for adjusting school-start times and allowing flexible work schedules so that people don’t have to get up before sunrise. In the time-zone study by Giuntella and colleagues, for example, when people could sleep later in the morning — because they were unemployed or started work later — they didn’t seem to experience the negative effects of living with later sunsets.

And, although it sounds like a radical idea, states could also adjust time-zone boundaries. “I don’t think we want 10 time zones, but maybe we add one for the Northeast,” said Malow. Because the New England states are so far east, winter sunsets come early — before 4 p.m. in December in parts of Maine.

And then there is the question of whether so-called ETLs would better align with the time zone to their west. For example, Malow lives in the Nashville area in Central Time, but part of the state juts into Eastern time. “If we could get Eastern Tennessee into Central Time, that would solve a lot of problems,” she said. As it is, if the country shifts to permanent DST, the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville wouldn’t see the sun until nearly 9 a.m. in January or darkness until nearly 10 p.m. in June.

Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues have also suggested redrawing time-zone boundaries in Europe, which in some cases are even more skewed than those in the U.S.

Ideally, Malow would like to see all of the above — flexible schedules, adjusted time zones, and permanent ST. “It’s important to look at the whole picture, and for us to figure something out,” said Malow. She’s somewhat hopeful as the discussions about how we mark time are not particularly partisan and changes wouldn’t cost much if anything.

It could even bring people together across the political divide, said Malow. “Wouldn’t that be great?” she said. “Stopping the clock back and forth could be the great unifier in our country.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

MIT affiliates named 2024 AAAS Fellows

The American Association for the Advancement of Science recognizes six current affiliates and 27 additional MIT alumni for their efforts to advance science and related fields.

Six current MIT affiliates and 27 additional MIT alumni have been elected as fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The 2024 class of AAAS Fellows includes 471 scientists, engineers, and innovators, spanning all 24 of AAAS disciplinary sections, who are being recognized for their scientifically and socially distinguished achievements.Noubar Afeyan PhD ’87, life member of the MIT Corporation, was named a AAAS Fellow “for outstanding leadership in biotechnology, in particular mRNA therapeutics, and for advocacy for recognition of the contributions of immigrants to economic and scientific progress.” Afeyan is the founder and CEO of the venture creation company Flagship Pioneering, which has built over 100 science-based companies to transform human health and sustainability. He is also the chairman and cofounder of Moderna, which was awarded a 2024 National Medal of Technology and Innovation for the development of its Covid-19 vaccine. Afeyan earned his PhD in biochemical engineering at MIT in 1987 and was a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management for 16 years, starting in 2000. Among other activities at the Institute, he serves on the advisory board of the MIT Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning and delivered MIT’s 2024 Commencement address.Cynthia Breazeal SM ’93, ScD ’00 is a professor of media arts and sciences at MIT, where she founded and directs the Personal Robots group in the MIT Media Lab. At MIT Open Learning, she is the MIT dean for digital learning, and in this role, she leverages her experience in emerging digital technologies and business, research, and strategic initiatives to lead Open Learning’s business and research and engagement units. She is also the director of the MIT-wide Initiative on Responsible AI for Social Empowerment and Education (raise.mit.edu). She co-founded the consumer social robotics company, Jibo, Inc., where she served as chief scientist and chief experience officer. She is recognized for distinguished contributions in the field of artificial intelligence education, particularly around the use of social robots, and learning at scale.Alan Edelman PhD ’89 is an applied mathematics professor for the Department of Mathematics and leads the Applied Computing Group of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the MIT Julia Lab. He is recognized as a 2024 AAAS fellow for distinguished contributions and outstanding breakthroughs in high-performance computing, linear algebra, random matrix theory, computational science, and in particular for the development of the Julia programming language. Edelman has been elected a fellow of five different societies — AMS, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Association for Computing Machinery, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and AAAS.Robert B. Millard '73, life member and chairman emeritus of the MIT Corporation, was named a 2024 AAAS Fellow for outstanding contributions to the scientific community and U.S. higher education "through exemplary leadership service to such storied institutions as AAAS and MIT." Millard joined the MIT Corporation as a term member in 2003 and was elected a life member in 2013. He served on the Executive Committee for 10 years and on the Investment Company Management Board for seven years, including serving as its chair for the last four years. He served as a member of the Visiting Committees for Physics, Architecture, and Chemistry. In addition, Millard has served as a member of the Linguistics and Philosophy Visiting Committee, the Corporation Development Committee, and the Advisory Council for the Council for the Arts. In 2011, Millard received the Bronze Beaver Award, the MIT Alumni Association’s highest honor for distinguished service.Jagadeesh S. Moodera is a senior research scientist in the Department of Physics. His research interests include experimental condensed matter physics: spin polarized tunneling and nano spintronics; exchange coupled ferromagnet/superconductor interface, triplet pairing, nonreciprocal current transport and memory toward superconducting spintronics for quantum technology; and topological insulators/superconductors, including Majorana bound state studies in metallic systems. His research in the area of spin polarized tunneling led to a breakthrough in observing tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) at room temperature in magnetic tunnel junctions. This resulted in a huge surge in this area of research, currently one of the most active areas. TMR effect is used in all ultra-high-density magnetic data storage, as well as for the development of nonvolatile magnetic random access memory (MRAM) that is currently being advanced further in various electronic devices, including for neuromorphic computing architecture. For his leadership in spintronics, the discovery of TMR, the development of MRAM, and for mentoring the next generation of scientists, Moodera was named a 2024 AAAS Fellow. For his TMR discovery he was awarded the Oliver Buckley Prize (2009) by the American Physical Society (APS), named an American National Science Foundation Competitiveness and Innovation Fellow (2008-10), won IBM and TDK Research Awards (1995-98), and became a Fellow of APS (2000).Noelle Eckley Selin, the director of the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy and a professor in the Institute for Data, Systems and Society and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, uses atmospheric chemistry modeling to inform decision-making strategies on air pollution, climate change, and toxic substances, including mercury and persistent organic pollutants. She has also published articles and book chapters on the interactions between science and policy in international environmental negotiations, in particular focusing on global efforts to regulate hazardous chemicals and persistent organic pollutants. She is named a 2024 AAAS Fellow for world-recognized leadership in modeling the impacts of air pollution on human health, in assessing the costs and benefits of related policies, and in integrating technology dynamics into sustainability science.Additional MIT alumni honored as 2024 AAAS Fellows include: Danah Boyd SM ’02 (Media Arts and Sciences); Michael S. Branicky ScD ’95 (EECS); Jane P. Chang SM ’95, PhD ’98 (Chemical Engineering); Yong Chen SM '99 (Mathematics); Roger Nelson Clark PhD '80 (EAPS); Mark Stephen Daskin ’74, PhD ’78 (Civil and Environmental Engineering); Marla L. Dowell PhD ’94 (Physics); Raissa M. D’Souza PhD ’99 (Physics); Cynthia Joan Ebinger SM '86, PhD '88 (EAPS/WHOI); Thomas Henry Epps III ’98, SM ’99 (Chemical Engineering); Daniel Goldman ’94 (Physics); Kenneth Keiler PhD ’96 (Biology); Karen Jean Meech PhD '87 (EAPS); Christopher B. Murray PhD ’95 (Chemistry); Jason Nieh '89 (EECS); William Nordhaus PhD ’67 (Economics); Milica Radisic PhD '04 (Chemical Engineering); James G. Rheinwald PhD ’76 (Biology); Adina L. Roskies PhD ’04 (Philosophy); Linda Rothschild (Preiss) PhD '70 (Mathematics); Soni Lacefield Shimoda PhD '03 (Biology); Dawn Y. Sumner PhD ’95 (EAPS); Tina L. Tootle PhD ’04 (Biology); Karen Viskupic PhD '03 (EAPS); Brant M. Weinstein PhD ’92 (Biology); Chee Wei Wong SM ’01, ScD ’03 (Mechanical Engineering; and Fei Xu PhD ’95 (Brain and Cognitive Sciences). 

Out of the Lab and Into the Streets, Researchers and Doctors Rally for Science Against Trump Cuts

Researchers, doctors, their patients and supporters are venturing out of labs, hospitals and offices across the country to stand up to what they call an attack on life-saving science by the Trump administration

WASHINGTON (AP) — Researchers, doctors, their patients and supporters ventured out of labs, hospitals and offices Friday to stand up to what they call a blitz on life-saving science by the Trump administration.In the nation's capital, several hundred people gathered at the Stand Up for Science rally. Organizers said similar rallies were planned in more than 30 U.S. cities. Politicians, scientists, musicians, doctors and their patients were expected to make the case that firings, budget and grant cuts in health, climate, science and other research government agencies in the Trump administration's first 47 days in office are endangering not just the future but the present.“Science is under attack in the United States,” said rally co-organizer Colette Delawalla, a doctoral student in clinical psychology. “We're not just going to stand here and take it.”“American scientific progress and forward movement is a public good and public good is coming to a screeching halt right now,” Delawalla said. “It's a very bad time with all the promise and momentum," said Collins. Friday's rally in Washington was at the Lincoln Memorial, in the shadow of a statue of the president who created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863. Some of the expected speakers study giant colliding galaxies, the tiny genetic blueprint of life inside humans and the warming atmosphere.Nobel Prize winning biologist Victor Ambros, Bill Nye The Science Guy, former NASA chief Bill Nelson and a host of other politicians, and patients — some with rare diseases — were expected to take the stage to talk about their work and the importance of scientific research. The rallies were organized mostly by graduate students and early career scientists. Dozens of other protests were also planned around the world, including more than 30 in France, Delawalla said.“The cuts in science funding affects the world,” she said.She said the administration’s campaign to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion have delayed and threatened her grant because the National Institutes of Health is scrubbing proposals with words such as “female” or “woman.” Her research focuses on compulsive alcohol use in people, which is different for men and women.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

A leg up for STEM majors

MIT undergraduates broaden their perspectives and prospects through political science.

Senior Kevin Guo, a computer science major, and junior Erin Hovendon, studying mechanical engineering, are on widely divergent paths at MIT. But their lives do intersect in one dimension: They share an understanding that their political science and public policy minors provide crucial perspectives on their research and future careers.For Guo, the connection between computer science and policy emerged through his work at MIT's Election Data and Science Lab. “When I started, I was just looking for a place to learn how to code and do data science,” he reflects. “But what I found was this fascinating intersection where technical skills could directly shape democratic processes.”Hovendon is focused on sustainable methods for addressing climate change. She is currently participating in a multisemester research project at MIT's Environmental Dynamics Lab (ENDLab) developing monitoring technology for marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR).She believes the success of her research today and in the future depends on understanding its impact on society. Her academic track in policy provides that grounding. “When you’re developing a new technology, you need to focus as well on how it will be applied,” she says. “This means learning about the policies required to scale it up, and about the best ways to convey the value of what you’re working on to the public.”Bridging STEM and policyFor both Hovendon and Guo, interdisciplinary study is proving to be a valuable platform for tangibly addressing real-world challenges.Guo came to MIT from Andover, Massachusetts, the son of parents who specialize in semiconductors and computer science. While math and computer science were a natural track for him, Guo was also keenly interested in geopolitics. He enrolled in class 17.40 (American Foreign Policy). “It was my first engagement with MIT political science and I liked it a lot, because it dealt with historical episodes I wanted to learn more about, like World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam,” says Guo.He followed up with a class on American Military History and on the Rise of Asia, where he found himself enrolled with graduate students and active duty U.S. military officers. “I liked attending a course with people who had unusual insights,” Guo remarks. “I also liked that these humanities classes were small seminars, and focused a lot on individual students.”From coding to electionsIt was in class 17.835 (Machine Learning and Data Science in Politics) that Guo first realized he could directly connect his computer science and math expertise to the humanities. “They gave us big political science datasets to analyze, which was a pretty cool application of the skills I learned in my major,” he says.Guo springboarded from this class to a three-year, undergraduate research project in the Election Data and Science Lab. “The hardest part is data collection, which I worked on for an election audit project that looked at whether there were significant differences between original vote counts and audit counts in all the states, at the precinct level,” says Guo. “We had to scrape data, raw PDFs, and create a unified dataset, standardized to our format, that we could publish.”The data analysis skills he acquired in the lab have come in handy in the professional sphere in which he has begun training: investment finance.“The workflow is very similar: clean the data to see what you want, analyze it to see if I can find an edge, and then write some code to implement it,” he says. “The biggest difference between finance and the lab research is that the development cycle is a lot faster, where you want to act on a dataset in a few days, rather than weeks or months.”Engineering environmental solutionsHovendon, a native of North Carolina with a deep love for the outdoors, arrived at MIT committed “to doing something related to sustainability and having a direct application in the world around me,” she says.Initially, she headed toward environmental engineering, “but then I realized that pretty much every major can take a different approach to that topic,” she says. “So I ended up switching to mechanical engineering because I really enjoy the hands-on aspects of the field.”In parallel to her design and manufacturing, and mechanics and materials courses, Hovendon also immersed herself in energy and environmental policy classes. One memorable anthropology class, 21A.404 (Living through Climate Change), asked students to consider whether technological or policy solutions could be fully effective on their own for combating climate change. “It was useful to apply holistic ways of exploring human relations to the environment,” says Hovendon.Hovendon brings this well-rounded perspective to her research at ENDLab in marine carbon capture and fluid dynamics. She is helping to develop verification methods for mCDR at a pilot treatment plant in California. The facility aims to remove 100 tons of carbon dioxide directly from the ocean by enhancing natural processes. Hovendon hopes to design cost-efficient monitoring systems to demonstrate the efficacy of this new technology. If scaled up, mCDR could enable oceans to store significantly more atmospheric carbon, helping cool the planet.But Hovendon is well aware that innovation with a major impact cannot emerge on the basis of technical efficacy alone.“You're going to have people who think that you shouldn't be trying to replicate or interfere with a natural system, and if you're putting one of these facilities somewhere in water, then you're using public spaces and resources,” she says. “It's impossible to come up with any kind of technology, but especially any kind of climate-related technology, without first getting the public to buy into it.”She recalls class 17.30J (Making Public Policy), which emphasized the importance of both economic and social analysis to the successful passage of highly impactful legislation, such as the Affordable Care Act.“I think that breakthroughs in science and engineering should be evaluated not just through their technological prowess, but through the success of their implementation for general societal benefit,” she says. “Understanding the policy aspects is vital for improving accessibility for scientific advancements.”Beyond the domeGuo will soon set out for a career as a quantitative financial trader, and he views his political science background as essential to his success. While his expertise in data cleaning and analysis will come into play, he believes other skills will as well: “Understanding foreign policy, considering how U.S. policy impacts other places, that's actually very important in finance,” he explains. “Macroeconomic changes and politics affect trading volatility and markets in general, so it's very important to understand what's going on.”With one year to go, Hovendon is contemplating graduate school in mechanical engineering, perhaps designing renewable energy technologies. “I just really hope that I'm working on something I'm genuinely passionate about, something that has a broader purpose,” she says. “In terms of politics and technology, I also hope that at least some government research and development will still go to climate work, because I'm sure there will be an urgent need for it.”

The best portable air purifiers for 2025

Numerous studies reveal that Indoor air can be more polluted than the air outside. Air purifiers can help improve indoor air quality. However, more powerful smart models are quite bulky and hard to transport from one room—or place—to the next. Many air purifiers for home can weigh between 20 and 30 pounds, making them difficult […] The post The best portable air purifiers for 2025 appeared first on Popular Science.

Numerous studies reveal that Indoor air can be more polluted than the air outside. Air purifiers can help improve indoor air quality. However, more powerful smart models are quite bulky and hard to transport from one room—or place—to the next. Many air purifiers for home can weigh between 20 and 30 pounds, making them difficult to move. “Portable air purifiers can help improve your home’s indoor air quality by actively reducing indoor particulate matter and airborne allergens,” says Dr. John McKeon, CEO of Allergy Standards Ltd. Since air purifiers are designed to clean the air in one room or area effectively, portability is essential if you only have one air purifier. “You’ll want it in the living room when you’re in that room and in the bedroom when you’re there,” McKeon explains. You may also want to take an air purifier—like our best overall, the TruSens Air Purifier—with you to work or when you’re visiting environments that can trigger allergies. The best portable air purifiers are not only easy to move, but they also have many of the same features (on a smaller scale) as larger models.  Best overall: TruSens Air Purifier   Best design: Smartmi Air Purifier Best value: Pure Enrichment PureZone Mini Portable Air Purifier   Best splurge: Coway Airmega AP-1512HH Air Purifier   How we chose the best portable air purifiers To compile this list of the best portable air purifiers, we conducted extensive research, contacted Dr. John McKeon and Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA), and did lots of first-hand testing. We wanted to provide a variety of choices, so the list is a mix of smallish, lightweight air purifiers with handles, and handheld air purifiers that can fit in a vehicle’s cup holder. We also considered peer recommendations and consumer reviews, the clean air delivery rate (CADR), recommended room sizes, filtration, and noise levels. The best portable air purifiers: Reviews & Recommendations As a general rule, the CADR is one of the most critical factors. However, if you need a portable air purifier, the CADR doesn’t really matter if the air purifier is too big and bulky to transport as needed. Some of our articles, like the best smart air purifiers, and the best air purifiers for asthma, include some models with a CADR as high as the 400 to 600 range, which is exceptionally high, considering the average “good” air purifier has a CADR in the 200 range. However, the air purifiers with the highest CADR tend to be big and bulky, so they’re not conducive to moving. So, most of the air purifiers on this list have a good CADR (when that information is available), but keep in mind that, as a general rule, a smaller air purifier isn’t going to deliver the same power as a much larger model. McKeon also says it is important to remember that an air purifier is only one part of a comprehensive approach to improving indoor air quality. “It’s most effective when used in conjunction with other strategies, such as regular cleaning, proper ventilation, and effective source control of pollutants,” he says. But you’re here to improve your environment with the best portable air purifiers, so read on. Best overall: TruSens Air Purifier  Terri Williams Pros Stylish design Handle makes it easy to transport UV, Carbon, and HEPA filtration Three fan speeds Cons No auto mode Specs Dimensions: 7 x 7 x 17 inches Weight: 8.81 pounds Recommended coverage area: Up to 443 sq. ft. CADR: N/A Noise level: 30 – 65 dB I’ve had the TrueSens Small Air Purifier for years, and it’s like an old friend I can always rely on. I have smoking neighbors and tend to use larger, more powerful air purifiers in my living space. However, I keep the TruSens Small Air Purifier downstairs in my garage, which doesn’t get as much smoke—but still a fair amount, and also experiences a variety of other smells. The air purifier does an excellent job of removing those odors and smells.  It has a three-part filtration process that includes a HEPA Type filter, a carbon filter, and a UV-C light (which I never use—it can be turned on and off). The air purifier traps dust, pet dander, smoke, and other allergen, and the bi-directional airflow quickly delivers fresh air. The air purifier has three fan speeds (including a Turbo option), providing options for letting me control the airflow and noise level. The touch controls on the top are easy to operate, and the display panel reveals the speed and lets me know when the filters need to be replaced. This is our top choice because it has an excellent price, is easy to transport, and is quite effective for the scenarios in which most people would use an air purifier. It also has a sleek and space-saving design and is lightweight enough to grab by the handle and move from room to room or even toss in your car and carry to work or other locations. TruSens also makes this air purifier in medium and large sizes, and those models include additional features, like real-time air monitoring, washable pre-filter, timer, and additional fan speeds. Best design: Smartmi P1 Air Purifier Terri Williams Pros App Voice control Dual-laser particle sensor Leather strap Choice of filter Cons Have to turn it upside down to replace the filter Specs Dimensions: 11 x 11 x 17 inches Weight: 3 kg Recommended coverage area: 180 to 320 sq. ft. CADR: 250 Noise level: 19 – 49 dB At first glance, the Smartmi P1 Air Purifier looks like a knockoff of the Molecule Air Mini+ air purifier, which also has a leather strap. However, the Molecule Air Mini (which costs twice as much) only has a small leather strap on the side (with space for one or two fingers), whereas the Smartmi P1 has a stylish leather strap across the entire top. I’ve tested the Molecle, and the Smartmi strap feels much sturdier and doesn’t put all the weight on one or two fingers. The Smarti has a great design overall and is certainly one of the best-looking air purifiers on the market, But that’s not the only reason it gets our best design award. The Smartmi P1 also offers a choice of 2 filter types. The Pollen filter is a good choice for those who suffer from seasonal allergies. There’s also a Pet Filter that’s helpful if you have furry friends in your home. Both filters contain a True HEPA filter, preliminary filter for large particles, and carbon/inner filter, and can remove dust, smoke, pet dander, and other allergens. The touch controls and LCD monitor are on the top and include a dual PM 2.5/PM 10 particle sensor to capture both small and large particles in the air. The air purifier has a timer as well. Since it’s a smart air purifier, I can control it via smartphone or voice control.  Best value: Pure Enrichment PureZone Mini Portable Air Purifier   Terri Williams Pros Fits in vehicle cup tray Several color choices Rechargeable battery Three fan speeds Sits horizontally or vertically Cons Only for a personal bubble Specs Dimensions: 3.3 x 8.5 x 2.7 inches Weight: 0.6 ounces Recommended coverage area: 54 sq. ft. CADR: N/A Noise level: Up to 50 dB If it’s possible for an air purifier to be fun, the Pure Enrichment PureZone Mini Portable Air Purifier certainly is. It’s about the size of a 12-ounce soft drink and fits in my car’s cup holder. It’s also small enough to toss in my handbag or suitcase. When traveling, this air purifier allows me to purify the air when I’m in a hotel room or staying with family members or friends. And the fact that it’s battery-operated means I can use it literally everywhere. Although it’s small, the PureZone Mini works well. It has a dual HEPA filter that also includes an activated charcoal filter. The device has three fan speeds, but you must remember that the higher the speed, the quicker the battery runs out and needs to be recharged. The air purifier filters everything from dust to smoke to pollen and pet dander. One of my favorite features is the adjustable handle. This allows me to stand the device upright or tilt it on the side so it can be used vertically or horizontally. And when it’s hot, the air purifier also doubles as a small fan, providing both purified and cool air. Best splurge: Coway Airmega AP-1512HH Air Purifier Terri Williams Pros Smartphone control Lightweight Voice control Real-time air-quality indicator Cons Bulky compared to others on this list Specs Dimensions: 18.3 x 9.6 x 16.8 inches Weight: 12.3 pounds Recommended coverage area: up to 1,575 sq ft CADR: 221 Noise level: 24 – 53 dB While not necessarily an expensive air purifier (we’ve tested models that cost well over $1,000), the Coway AP-1512HH Air Purifier is the most expensive model on this list, which is why it’s our splurge choice. It can cover up to 1,474 sq. ft., and we think this model is a good portable choice for large rooms. The air purifier is easy to operate and the filtration system includes a pre-filter, True HEPA filter, and a Fresh Starter deodorizer filter, so it can capture both larger and smaller particles while also removing cooking and tobacco odors. The user-friendly control panel on the top lets me view real-time air-quality data, and the color-coded indicators turn blue when the air is fresh and clean, yellow when it’s problematic, and red when the air is unhealthy. There are five speeds, and when the air purifier is in auto mode, the fan will automatically increase or decrease depending on the air-quality indicator data. I can also set the timer for 1, 4, or 8 hours. The filter replacement light (one for the HEPA filter, one for the deodorizer filter) comes on when one of the filters needs to be replaced. What to consider when buying the best portable air purifiers There are several factors to consider when deciding which portable air purifier is right for you. When writing this guide, these are the factors we considered most important.  Room Size An air purifier may be effective in a smaller room but less effective in a larger room. That’s why we included the recommended room size for each air purifier on our list. Ensure you’re not expecting the air purifier to clean more space than it’s recommended to handle. CADR   For air-cleaning effectiveness, McKeon says selecting the correct Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) for the room size is vital. “This is an important metric, which indicates the volume of filtered air an air cleaner can deliver, with separate scores when the device was tested with smoke, pollen, and dust challenges.”  (Note: Some manufacturers combine the scores for smoke, pollen, and dust and just list the average CADR rating of the three tests.)  “A higher CADR means the device can filter more particles,” McKeon says. Filtration Filtration is another important factor to continue, and the presence of a HEPA filter is always a good sign. “HEPA stands for High Efficiency Particulate Air,” Mendez explains. “These filters are media-based, meaning that they are physical filters, which capture particles as air passes through them, and HEPA filters are designed to filter out at least 99.7 percent of particles of 0.3 microns or larger diameter,” he says.  Smart Smart features can make the air purifier easier to operate. For example, some models have an app, so you can control it using your smartphone and even issue voice commands. Other smart features include the ability to auto-detect the level of air purification needed and adjust the airflow accordingly. FAQS Q: How do air purifiers work? “Portable air purifiers function similarly to whole-home systems, but they are designed to clean the air in a specific room,” McKeon says. “They draw air in and pass it through specific filters to remove airborne pollutants, and. they’re often used to address specific areas, like rooms most affected by smoke, or bedrooms where people can spend lots of time.” Q: Where is the best place to put a portable air purifier? “When determining where to place a portable air purifier, you should consider the rooms in the house where you spend the most time,” Mendez says. “This may vary throughout the day, so, you may place the air purifier in a home office during the day and then move it to your bedroom while sleeping.”  Q: Do portable air purifiers work for COVID and other airborne viruses? “According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), when used properly, air purifiers can help reduce airborne contaminants, including viruses in a home or confined space,” Mendez says. “However, by itself, a portable air cleaner is not enough to protect people from COVID-19.” Q: Can air purifiers help with allergies? “Yes. Air purifiers can be a useful tool for reducing exposure to common allergens such as pollen, mold, and pet dander,” Mendez says. McKeon agrees. “Air purifiers can play a key role in helping to manage allergies by removing airborne allergens, such as pet dander, pollen, mold, and dust mite allergen from the breathing zone,” McKeon says. Q: Is it OK to sleep with an air purifier running? Yes. It is generally safe to sleep with an air purifier running. You should always pay attention to the manufacturer’s recommendations for information on how long to run your purifier and where to place it,” Mendez says. “When properly used, an air purifier can help improve the air quality where you sleep.” Final thoughts on the best portable air purifiers Best overall: TruSens Air Purifier   Best design: Smartmi Air Purifier Best value: Pure Enrichment PureZone Mini Portable Air Purifier   Best splurge: Coway Airmega AP-1512HH Air Purifier  An air purifier can only be beneficial to you if it’s in the same room where you’re residing. The best portable air purifiers can be easily transported from one room or area to the next, and some can even be placed in your backpack or vehicle’s cup holder and transported to the office or taken on trips. Factors to consider include filtration, room size, CADR, and preferences such as smart features. The right portable air purifier can help to filter your air—wherever you are. The post The best portable air purifiers for 2025 appeared first on Popular Science.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.