Clinical outcomes, ethics and inference

What patient-outcome claim, if any, has evidence that applies to the intended clinical use?

No evidence that C-POLAR publishes applies to a patient outcome in any clinical use.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. A quotation on a page is the words of the person named with it: the home page quotes Prof. Michael K. Mansour, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, and names him with his words: “The utilization of NanoFlashing™ as an essential interrupter, breaking the chain of microbial spread, and reducing infections in multiple applications, results in improved overall health.”

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; C-POLAR — Home, https://cpolar.tech/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does any evidence support changing infection-control practice because this product is installed?

The published copy is not permission to reduce another control, and C-POLAR publishes no evidence that supports a change to infection-control practice.

The published Terms of Use state that Site Content must not be used to diagnose, treat, or make a patient-care or infection-control decision. They add: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The company does not publish its internal reviews. The NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label states that the filter works alongside ventilation and cleaning, not in place of them.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

How does the described use differ between a filter component and a finished medical product?

C-POLAR supplies a materials technology, and a finished medical product is made by someone else.

The published Terms of Use state: “As of the Effective Date, the Water, Textiles, Food packaging, and Medical devices chapters describe Research Applications. They do not describe finished products currently available from C-POLAR for those uses.” The published position is that every commercial NanoFlashing™ product is made by a manufacturing partner, in their facility, in their format. The published Terms of Use state: “A test of C-POLAR material, a component, or a prototype does not establish the performance of a finished product that incorporates it.” C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — About, https://cpolar.tech/about/; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™ Medical, https://cpolar.tech/medical/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Could a reasonable buyer interpret the copy as permission to reduce other controls, and was that implication reviewed?

The published copy is not permission to reduce another control, and C-POLAR publishes no evidence that supports a change to infection-control practice.

The published Terms of Use state that Site Content must not be used to diagnose, treat, or make a patient-care or infection-control decision. They add: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The company does not publish its internal reviews. The NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label states that the filter works alongside ventilation and cleaning, not in place of them.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

What information should a clinical purchasing committee use to distinguish laboratory performance from patient benefit?

A laboratory record names the institution, the date, the article tested and what was measured, with the report number and the standard where the report carries them, and a patient outcome is none of those.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” The records named on the Validation page include LMS Technologies, Report LMS#9904, 28 April 2025, a single-pass fractional efficiency test on a 24 × 24 × 2 in. pleated air filter in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct, in accordance with standard LMS aerosol test procedures, and Report 6847, ASHRAE 52.2 with Appendix J; Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011; OEKO-TEX Service GmbH, Certificate 17.0.25812; and Product Safety Labs, Studies 65321, 65322, 65323 and 65324. The published Terms of Use state: “A test of C-POLAR material, a component, or a prototype does not establish the performance of a finished product that incorporates it.” Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026, a laboratory accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, tested a MERV 15A filter medium under ISO 20743 and ISO 18184. An activity value is a difference against an untreated control fabric. It is not a percentage destroyed and not an airborne result. The Viruses page shows airborne virus at 1.3 m/s airflow, NanoFlashing™ beside a control, and states: “NanoFlashing™ captures the virus, and destroys it.” The Mold page shows airborne mold spores at 1.6 m/s airflow, NanoFlashing™ beside a control, and states: “NanoFlashing™ captures the mold, and destroys it.” The Mold page also states that researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, in a study with funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, tested NanoFlashing™ with more than 100 million live, dry spores driven in by fast-moving air. Both numbers can be checked at source: certificate 17.0.25812 in OEKO-TEX’s public label check, and Certificate No. 15.06.011 in the Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory. Certificate No. 15.06.011 covers a ten-pocket bag filter, not a flat panel filter, and Report 6847 is on a 24 × 24 × 30 in. pocket filter; a rating belongs to the construction that was tested. NanoFlashing™ is a technology; the name, rating and sale of a product that carries it are set by that product's maker and seller.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; LMS Technologies, Report LMS#9904, 28 April 2025, a single-pass fractional efficiency test on a 24 × 24 × 2 in. pleated air filter in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct, in accordance with standard LMS aerosol test procedures, and Report 6847, ASHRAE 52.2 with Appendix J; Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011, ISO 16890; OEKO-TEX Service GmbH, Certificate 17.0.25812, OEKO-TEX® Standard 100, Product Class II; Product Safety Labs, Studies 65321, 65322, 65323 and 65324, Good Laboratory Practice, US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines; OEKO-TEX Label Check, read 19 September 2026, https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/label-check; Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory, read 19 September 2026, https://www.eurovent-certification.com/; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026, ISO 20743 and ISO 18184; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Can a proposed statement about contamination control be separated from a claim about infection reduction?

A statement about what a filter takes out of the air is a statement about air, and a statement about infection is a statement about people.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Are the proposed purchasing documents explicit about outcomes that were not measured?

C-POLAR does not publish purchasing documents.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. The published 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. NanoFlashing™ is a technology; the name, rating and sale of a product that carries it are set by that product's maker and seller.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Could surrounding disease, workplace or clinical language create a health promise despite a separate limiting sentence?

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state that Site Content must not be used to diagnose, treat, or make a patient-care or infection-control decision. They add: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” A quotation on a page is the words of the person named with it: the home page quotes Prof. Michael K. Mansour, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, and names him with his words: “The utilization of NanoFlashing™ as an essential interrupter, breaking the chain of microbial spread, and reducing infections in multiple applications, results in improved overall health.” The published Terms of Use state: “A citation, quotation, name, logo, link, or third-party test does not by itself mean that the third party sponsors, endorses, certifies, or approves C-POLAR, a C-POLAR product, a Site claim, or a proposed use.” The Terms add that a citation or quotation does not mean that C-POLAR endorses every statement in the third-party source.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — home, https://cpolar.tech/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Could a proposed clinical study use a composite endpoint that improves even when an important individual outcome does not?

The company has published no clinical study, so it has published no composite endpoint.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Would an outcome measure distinguish symptoms from confirmed diagnoses?

The company has published no outcome measure, for symptoms or for diagnoses.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

How would a study account for changes in vaccination, treatment or background illness rates?

The company has published no study that would need to account for those changes.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Can the study separate the effect of a filter from changes in ventilation or cleaning?

The company has published no study that separates a filter effect from ventilation or cleaning, and its label states that the filter works alongside ventilation and cleaning, not in place of them.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Would allocation at room level require analysis that accounts for patients sharing a room?

The company has published no study with room-level allocation.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Can staff awareness of the installed product influence outcome reporting?

The company has published no study in which staff reported outcomes.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Does a clinical study include the patient groups named in the proposed claim?

The company names no patient group in a claim.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Are adverse effects measured alongside potential benefits?

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, so no adverse effect has been measured alongside a benefit in one.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. The health-effects testing the company does publish is laboratory testing: Product Safety Labs, Study 65321 (OPPTS 870.1100, acute oral), Study 65322 (OPPTS 870.1200, acute dermal), Study 65323 (OPPTS 870.2500, primary skin irritation) and Study 65324 (OPPTS 870.2600, dermal sensitization), under Good Laboratory Practice to US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines, and OEKO-TEX Service GmbH, Certificate 17.0.25812, OEKO-TEX® Standard 100, Product Class II. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. Certificate 17.0.25812 can be checked at source in OEKO-TEX’s public label check. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Product Safety Labs, Studies 65321, 65322, 65323 and 65324, Good Laboratory Practice, US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines; OEKO-TEX Service GmbH, Certificate 17.0.25812, OEKO-TEX® Standard 100, Product Class II; OEKO-TEX Label Check, read 19 September 2026, https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/label-check. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Is follow-up long enough to capture the outcome being claimed?

The company has published no follow-up period, because it has published no clinical study.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

How would a study handle patients moving between rooms with different equipment?

The company has published no study that follows patients between rooms.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Can a claimed reduction in absenteeism be linked to a defined health outcome?

C-POLAR makes no claim about absenteeism.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Would a quality-improvement project support the same inference as a controlled clinical study?

A measurement made in a building is not a controlled clinical study.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Does the study distinguish a surrogate air-quality measure from a patient-centred endpoint?

A statement about what a filter takes out of the air is a statement about air, and a statement about infection is a statement about people.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Who decides whether participation requires individual consent or another authorised process?

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, so it publishes no consent process for one.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Can a sponsor influence whether an unfavourable clinical result is published?

C-POLAR publishes no publication-review term.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. The published paper states that the work was supported by unrestricted grants from C-POLAR Technologies, Inc., and in part by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council, the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS), the KGH Foundation and the University of British Columbia Okanagan, and that its authors declare no conflict of interest; it also states: “A.R. receives consulting fees from C-POLAR Technologies, Inc.” Three of its 31 authors list C-POLAR Technologies as their affiliation. The work was also supported in part by the US National Institutes of Health, grant AI132638, to M.K.M., which NIH RePORTER lists as Prof. Mansour's grant at Massachusetts General Hospital; the grant is printed in the paper's manuscript rather than in the published acknowledgments. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; NIH RePORTER, project R01AI132638, read 20 September 2026.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Is there an independent process for stopping a study if an unexpected safety concern appears?

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, so it publishes no stopping rule and no independent monitoring body for one.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Would a measured benefit justify a claim about cost savings without a separate economic analysis?

C-POLAR makes no claim about cost savings, and it has published no economic analysis.

The one building energy measurement the company publishes is at a financial landmark in London over six months from March 2024 to September 2024, measured before and after the air handling unit filters were changed to NanoFlashing™; it is one building over one period, and it is not an economic analysis. C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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. NanoFlashing™ is a technology; the name, rating and sale of a product that carries it are set by that product's maker and seller.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Can an absolute risk reduction be reported alongside a relative reduction?

C-POLAR publishes no measured risk reduction, absolute or relative.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Does the evidence identify groups for whom benefit was not established?

The company has established no benefit for any patient group, so there is no subgroup finding to report.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A capture rating under ASHRAE 52.2 or ISO 16890 measures what a filter takes out of the air, and it says nothing about a patient. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

Can a clinical trial's registered outcome be matched to the outcome later promoted?

C-POLAR has published no clinical trial, and it promotes no trial outcome.

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome. The published Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.” What the company has published is laboratory testing, named on its Validation page with the institutions and the conditions tested; measurements in buildings, not in patients, which the same page says were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System; and the peer-reviewed paper Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology. A question about a proposed study goes to [email protected]. 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 — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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.

When the filter destroys bacteria, can fragments or endotoxin from them get into the air?

The company publishes no measurement of fragments or endotoxin from captured bacteria reaching the air.

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 measurement of captured material coming back off a NanoFlashing™ filter into the air. General enquiries go to [email protected].

Source: Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.6; C-POLAR — Contact, https://cpolar.tech/contact/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Will this filter stop my family catching COVID or the flu?

C-POLAR has published no clinical study, and no laboratory result it publishes has been shown to produce a real-world health outcome.

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 NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label states: “This filter treats the air that passes through it. It is not a medical device and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease. It works alongside ventilation and cleaning, not in place of them.” The Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.”

Source: NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.6.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Is there clinical evidence that NanoFlashing reduces COVID-19 infections in hospitals?

The company publishes no clinical study of COVID-19 or of any other infection.

The peer-reviewed paper is Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. 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. Its authors state: “Our findings have several limitations, including a need for clinical studies on nosocomial infections in hospital or healthcare settings.” The Terms of Use state: “A laboratory reduction in a virus, bacterium, fungus, particle, or other endpoint does not establish a clinical benefit, fewer infections, disease prevention or treatment, or improved health.”

Source: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Could NanoFlashing disturb a patient's skin or gut microbiome?

The filter is not intended for use on or in people, and it works only on the air that passes through it.

The Statement of Classification states: “The filter is not intended for use on or in living man or living animals.” 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 air leaving the filter has had nothing added to it. The company publishes no study of the skin or gut microbiome.

Source: Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., sections 2.4, 2.6 and 3.3.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.