Is a claim of reduced regrowth supported separately from an immediate test result?

Is a claim of reduced regrowth supported separately from an immediate test result?

The company's claim is that the filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures, and its Validation page contrasts this with conventional filters, on which captured microbes remain viable for weeks to months; it publishes no separate regrowth test.

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 company's position, set out in section 2.6 of its Statement of Classification, is bounded. 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. Among the conditions tested listed on the Validation page is a used filter for 1 year. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” 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 — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and 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 21 September 2026.