Does the claimed effect address residual toxins independently of organism viability?
Last reviewed: .
Does the claimed effect address residual toxins independently of organism viability?
The company's claim is about the organism captured by the charge, and it publishes nothing about toxins.
The company's position is that the filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures, that 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 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 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. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.”
Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); 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 .
Sources
- C-POLAR — Terms of Use
- 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