Can loss of viability be mistaken for removal of allergenic material?

Can loss of viability be mistaken for removal of allergenic material?

No. Destroying a captured organism is not the same as removing allergenic material, and the company keeps the two apart: its pages state that NanoFlashing™ attracts and captures pollen, and its Statement of Classification states that the filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction. NanoFlashing™ attracts negatively charged particles through electrostatic attraction. Once attracted, the particle is captured by NanoFlashing™. When a captured pollutant has a fragile structure, NanoFlashing™ destroys it on contact through a physical mechanism. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The company publishes no allergen measurement. The paper reports laboratory results on SARS-CoV-2 in contact with treated textile, on aerosolised bovine coronavirus passed through a test filter in a wind tunnel, and on bacterial viability on treated textiles; each result belongs to the article that was tested.

Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™ (https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.