How does NanoFlashing compare with other technologies?

Do the reported smoke comparisons use matched filters and matching endpoints?

The reported smoke comparison measured the filter and a control filter on the same endpoint, single-pass fractional efficiency in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct: in LMS Technologies, Inc., Pine-Needle Smoke Report, LMS#10471 (October 20, 2025), the filter captured pine-needle smoke and ultrafine particles better than the control filter. The conventional-filter curve on the NanoFlashing™ page comes from a separate published source, which that page cites.

For wildfire smoke and ultrafine particles the Validation page names LMS Technologies, Report 9904, and LMS Technologies, Report 6847. The NanoFlashing™ page's chart names its control as a conventional MERV-13 filter, and it names no competitor's model. The EPA study cited alongside it measured clean-air delivery, a different measurement from fractional efficiency. The Validation page states: “In independent testing with real smoke from burning pine needles, NanoFlashing™ captured nearly 92% of ultrafine particles at 16.5 nanometres, far smaller than a coronavirus.”

Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.5; LMS Technologies, Inc., Pine-Needle Smoke Report, LMS#10471 (October 20, 2025), single-pass fractional efficiency, ASHRAE 52.2 test duct. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Which public comparisons with competing technologies are backed by comparable test conditions?

The public comparison backed by one set of test conditions is LMS Technologies, Inc., Pine-Needle Smoke Report, LMS#10471 (October 20, 2025): in single-pass laboratory testing in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct, the filter captured pine-needle smoke and ultrafine particles better than the control filter. The conventional-filter curve on the NanoFlashing™ page comes from a separate published source, which that page cites.

For wildfire smoke and ultrafine particles the Validation page names LMS Technologies, Report 9904, and LMS Technologies, Report 6847. The NanoFlashing™ page's chart names its control as a conventional MERV-13 filter, and it names no competitor's model. The EPA study cited alongside it measured clean-air delivery, a different measurement from fractional efficiency. The Validation page states: “In independent testing with real smoke from burning pine needles, NanoFlashing™ captured nearly 92% of ultrafine particles at 16.5 nanometres, far smaller than a coronavirus.”

Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.5; LMS Technologies, Inc., Pine-Needle Smoke Report, LMS#10471 (October 20, 2025), single-pass fractional efficiency, ASHRAE 52.2 test duct. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Are particle-filtration ratings available separately from claims about viruses, bacteria or fungal spores?

The particle rating and the statement about viruses, bacteria and fungal spores rest on different tests, and each is reported on its own.

ASHRAE 52.2 and ISO 16890 measure what a filter takes out of the air, and they say nothing about what happens to what is captured. The Validation page states: “Industry standards ASHRAE 52.2 Appendix J and ISO 16890 test electrostatic filters after their temporary charge is removed, showing how they perform without it. NanoFlashing™ maintains MERV 15A performance under ASHRAE testing, while Eurovent certifies the same filter at ISO ePM1 70%, with an A class energy rating.” It names the records for those ratings as LMS Technologies, Report 9904, LMS Technologies, Report 6847, and Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011; a rating belongs to the construction that was tested. Certificate No. 15.06.011 can be looked up at source in the Eurovent Certita Certification directory, https://www.eurovent-certification.com/en/catalog/program/certificate/participant/model/show/202119878.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; LMS Technologies, Report 9904, and LMS Technologies, Report 6847; Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011, https://www.eurovent-certification.com/en/catalog/program/certificate/participant/model/show/202119878. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

What evidence, if any, applies to odors or gaseous pollutants rather than particles?

The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction.

C-POLAR publishes no evidence for a gas, a vapour or an odour, and it makes no claim about one.

NanoFlashing™ attracts negatively charged particles through electrostatic attraction. General enquiries go to [email protected].

Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 2.5, issued by NF Technical Products Inc.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Can a customer compare total ownership costs without unsupported assumptions about life, maintenance or energy?

Every commercial NanoFlashing™ product is made by a manufacturing partner, in their facility, in their format, and a price and the terms attached to it come from the partner or the seller that makes the offer. Replacement is set by the pressure drop and the interval stated on the product’s own label.

The Terms of Use name two online stores, shop.cpolartechnologies.com and shopusa.cpolartechnologies.com, and state: “The store and every purchase from it are governed only by the terms presented there.” The company names its manufacturing and distribution partners on the About page and the Air page: Aero Pro, AQ Filter, BGE Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Olympic International and VOLZ Filters. General enquiries go to [email protected].

This site publishes no price, no service life, no running cost and no shipping cost for a finished product, and no recommendation for a room size; figures of that kind come from the partner or the seller that makes the offer. 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 — About, https://cpolar.tech/about/; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™ Air, https://cpolar.tech/air/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

What evidence separates an objective procurement specification from wording tailored to exclude competitors without support?

A specification written as a measured property under a named standard can be met by any product that meets it.

ASHRAE 52.2 and ISO 16890 measure what a filter takes out of the air, and they say nothing about what happens to what is captured. The air-filtration standards named in the company's published testing are ASHRAE 52.2 and ISO 16890. The Validation page states: “NanoFlashing™ maintains MERV 15A performance under ASHRAE testing, while Eurovent certifies the same filter at ISO ePM1 70%, with an A class energy rating.” It names Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011. The published position is that industry standards ASHRAE 52.2 Appendix J and ISO 16890 test electrostatic filters after their temporary charge is removed, showing how they perform without it. The published Terms of Use state: “Nothing on the Site authorizes anyone to manufacture, integrate, market, resell, or describe a product as C-POLAR-enabled. Nothing authorizes anyone to describe itself as a C-POLAR partner. Written permission is required.” Certificate No. 15.06.011 can be looked up at source in the Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory, at https://www.eurovent-certification.com/en/catalog/program/certificate/participant/model/show/202119878.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011, ISO 16890; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory, Certificate No. 15.06.011, read 6 October 2026, https://www.eurovent-certification.com/en/catalog/program/certificate/participant/model/show/202119878.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

For my room, would a larger conventional filter outperform a smaller NanoFlashing unit?

A measured advantage belongs to the filter that was measured.

A comparison means something only when both products are measured at the same airflow and under the same standard. The published Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” C-POLAR publishes no comparison between filter sizes or between units. A rating applies to the filter that was tested, not to every product that carries the technology. General enquiries go to [email protected].

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

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

How should I compare NanoFlashing with HEPA filtration at the same delivered airflow?

A comparison with a HEPA filter is made at the same delivered airflow and under the same standard.

A comparison means something only when both products are measured at the same airflow and under the same standard. ASHRAE 52.2 and ISO 16890 measure what a filter takes out of the air, and they say nothing about what happens to what is captured. The Ultrafine Particles page states: “The hardest size for any filter to catch is about 0.3 microns, the size HEPA is rated on, and, the US EPA notes, the point where a filter is weakest. In an independent lab test, NanoFlashing™ held more than 90% of the far smaller 16 to 34 nanometer particles, and 91.9% at 16.5 nanometers, the smallest size the lab measured.” NanoFlashing™ is a technology; the name, rating and sale of a product that carries it are set by that product's maker and seller. The Validation page states: “NanoFlashing™ maintains MERV 15A performance under ASHRAE testing, while Eurovent certifies the same filter at ISO ePM1 70%, with an A class energy rating.” It names LMS Technologies, Report 6847, and Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011, with those ratings. Certificate No. 15.06.011 can be looked up at source in the Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory, https://www.eurovent-certification.com/en/catalog/program/certificate/participant/model/show/202119878.

Source: C-POLAR — Ultrafine Particles, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/ultrafine-particles/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; LMS Technologies, Report 6847, as named on the Validation page; Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory, Certificate No. 15.06.011, https://www.eurovent-certification.com/en/catalog/program/certificate/participant/model/show/202119878. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

How should I compare it with activated carbon when my main problem is a gas?

NanoFlashing™ attracts negatively charged particles through electrostatic attraction. The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction.

Where the main problem is a gas, the comparison turns on evidence for that gas. C-POLAR publishes no comparison with activated carbon, and no evidence for a gas, a vapour or an odour, and it makes no claim about one. General enquiries go to [email protected].

Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Would adding ventilation provide more benefit than upgrading this filter in my building?

The filter and ventilation do different things, and the company's label states that the filter works alongside ventilation and cleaning, not in place of them.

A combination of measures is a matter for the building, and C-POLAR publishes no comparison of combined systems. The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction. Where C-POLAR's pages compare NanoFlashing™ with other filters, they compare it with conventional filters as a class and name no competitor's model. General enquiries go to [email protected].

Source: NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

How should I compare a NanoFlashing filter with an ionising purifier for byproducts and maintenance?

For byproducts, the air leaving the filter has had nothing added to it, and for maintenance, the filter is replaced at the point stated on its own label.

NanoFlashing™ is passive. It generates no ozone, releases nothing, and adds nothing to what passes through. In a forced-air system, the system's own fan moves air through the filter. The filter is passive. It draws no power, and it has no power supply, electrode, lamp or reservoir. Maintenance is the replacement of the filter itself, at the pressure drop and the interval stated on the product's own label. Where C-POLAR's pages compare NanoFlashing™ with other filters, they compare it with conventional filters as a class and name no competitor's model. A comparison means something only when both products are measured at the same airflow and under the same standard. This site publishes no noise measurement, no price and no running cost. General enquiries go to [email protected]. 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 — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Can a comparison with ultraviolet treatment account for the complete system's operating requirements?

Yes, when it counts what each option needs to run: ultraviolet light needs a lamp and runs on electricity, while the filter draws no power and has no lamp.

NanoFlashing™ is passive. It generates no ozone, releases nothing, and adds nothing to what passes through. In a forced-air system, the system's own fan moves air through the filter. The filter is passive. It draws no power, and it has no power supply, electrode, lamp or reservoir. Maintenance is the replacement of the filter itself, at the pressure drop and the interval stated on the product's own label. Where C-POLAR's pages compare NanoFlashing™ with other filters, they compare it with conventional filters as a class and name no competitor's model. A comparison means something only when both products are measured at the same airflow and under the same standard. This site publishes no noise measurement, no price and no running cost. General enquiries go to [email protected].

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

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Does a comparison include the cost of a fan needed by one option but not the other?

The filter needs no fan of its own: it is passive, and the ventilation system's own fan moves the air.

NanoFlashing™ is passive. It generates no ozone, releases nothing, and adds nothing to what passes through. In a forced-air system, the system's own fan moves air through the filter. The filter is passive. It draws no power, and it has no power supply, electrode, lamp or reservoir. Maintenance is the replacement of the filter itself, at the pressure drop and the interval stated on the product's own label. Where C-POLAR's pages compare NanoFlashing™ with other filters, they compare it with conventional filters as a class and name no competitor's model. A comparison means something only when both products are measured at the same airflow and under the same standard. This site publishes no noise measurement, no price and no running cost. General enquiries go to [email protected]. 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 — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Can I compare noise at the airflow needed to meet my requirement rather than at the quietest setting?

A comparison means something only when both products are measured at the same airflow and under the same standard.

NanoFlashing™ is passive. It generates no ozone, releases nothing, and adds nothing to what passes through. The filter is passive. It draws no power, and it has no power supply, electrode, lamp or reservoir. Maintenance is the replacement of the filter itself, at the pressure drop and the interval stated on the product's own label. Where C-POLAR's pages compare NanoFlashing™ with other filters, they compare it with conventional filters as a class and name no competitor's model. This site publishes no noise measurement, no price and no running cost; the ventilation system's own fan moves air through the filter. General enquiries go to [email protected]. 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: Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.4; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Does a comparison assume both products are replaced at equally conservative intervals?

Replacement is set by the pressure drop and the interval stated on the product's own label, and a comparison uses the same basis for both products.

A comparison means something only when both products are measured at the same airflow and under the same standard. The label states that the filter is replaced when the pressure drop reaches the stated value, or at the stated interval, whichever comes first. General enquiries go to [email protected].

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

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Would a reusable frame change the waste comparison with a disposable assembly?

The label states that the filter is not washed, vacuumed, brushed, blown out or reused, and that a used filter and its packaging are disposed of as ordinary household or commercial waste under Federal, State and local requirements, and are not burned.

C-POLAR publishes no waste comparison. General enquiries go to [email protected].

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

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Is a lower purchase price offset by higher shipping costs for frequent replacements?

Replacement is set by the pressure drop and the interval stated on the product’s own label. Every commercial NanoFlashing™ product is made by a manufacturing partner, in their facility, in their format, and a price and the terms attached to it come from the partner or the seller that makes the offer.

The Terms of Use name two online stores, shop.cpolartechnologies.com and shopusa.cpolartechnologies.com, and state: “The store and every purchase from it are governed only by the terms presented there.” The company names its manufacturing and distribution partners on the About page and the Air page: Aero Pro, AQ Filter, BGE Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Olympic International and VOLZ Filters. General enquiries go to [email protected].

This site publishes no price, no service life, no running cost and no shipping cost for a finished product, and no recommendation for a room size; figures of that kind come from the partner or the seller that makes the offer. 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 — About, https://cpolar.tech/about/; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™ Air, https://cpolar.tech/air/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Can I compare products when one publishes full performance curves and the other publishes only a peak result?

The company publishes its filtration measurement size by size across the measured range on the NanoFlashing™ page, and each headline value on the Ultrafine Particles and Wildfire Smoke pages is stated with what it measured.

The smoke and ultrafine-particle reports named on the Validation page are LMS Technologies, Report 9904, and LMS Technologies, Report 6847. LMS Technologies' Pine-Needle Smoke Report LMS#10471 of 20 October 2025 measured single-pass fractional efficiency in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct. The published position is that industry standards ASHRAE 52.2 Appendix J and ISO 16890 test electrostatic filters after their temporary charge is removed, showing how they perform without it.

Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Ultrafine Particles, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/ultrafine-particles/; C-POLAR — Wildfire Smoke, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/wildfire-smoke/; LMS Technologies, Report 9904, and LMS Technologies, Report 6847, as named on the Validation page; LMS Technologies, Inc., Pine-Needle Smoke Report LMS#10471, 20 October 2025, single-pass fractional efficiency in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Does a claimed advantage remain when both filters are loaded with ordinary dust?

The NanoFlashing™ page states: “NanoFlashing™ does not fade.” The independent testing that page describes used smoke, and the company publishes no capture comparison of the two filters loaded with ordinary dust; the Bacteria page shows NanoFlashing™ beside a control under a heavy dust load, 100× the standard test dose, and states: “NanoFlashing™ captures the bacteria, and destroys it.”

The published position is that industry standards ASHRAE 52.2 Appendix J and ISO 16890 test electrostatic filters after their temporary charge is removed, showing how they perform without it. The Validation page lists heavy dust loaded among the conditions of its pathogen testing, and each result belongs to the article that was tested under that condition. General enquiries go to [email protected].

Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Bacteria, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/bacteria/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Would a combination of technologies be more suitable than either product alone?

The filter and ventilation do different things, and the company's label states that the filter works alongside ventilation and cleaning, not in place of them.

A combination of measures is a matter for the building, and C-POLAR publishes no comparison of combined systems. The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction. Where C-POLAR's pages compare NanoFlashing™ with other filters, they compare it with conventional filters as a class and name no competitor's model. General enquiries go to [email protected].

Source: NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Can a buyer compare service availability and replacement supply separately from performance?

Supply and service come from the maker and the seller of the product.

The published position is that every commercial NanoFlashing™ product is made by a manufacturing partner, in their facility, in their format. The Terms of Use name two stores, shop.cpolartechnologies.com and shopusa.cpolartechnologies.com, and state: “The store and every purchase from it are governed only by the terms presented there.” The manufacturing and distribution partners named on the published pages are Aero Pro, AQ Filter, BGE Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Olympic International and VOLZ Filters. The published Terms of Use state: “The manufacturer and seller of a finished product are responsible for its design, manufacture, labeling, instructions, claims, sale, and warranty, except for a responsibility C-POLAR expressly accepts in a Separate Agreement.” General enquiries go to [email protected]. 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 — About, https://cpolar.tech/about/; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™ Air, https://cpolar.tech/air/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Is a comparator's model still sold in the configuration used for the comparison?

The company's published comparison names the control as a conventional MERV-13 filter, and it names no competitor's model.

The published Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” The smoke and ultrafine-particle reports named on the Validation page are LMS Technologies, Report 9904, and LMS Technologies, Report 6847. LMS Technologies' Pine-Needle Smoke Report LMS#10471 of 20 October 2025 measured single-pass fractional efficiency in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct.

Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; LMS Technologies, Report 9904, and LMS Technologies, Report 6847; LMS Technologies, Inc., Pine-Needle Smoke Report LMS#10471, 20 October 2025, single-pass fractional efficiency in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Does a comparison account for the space needed to install each option?

The NanoFlashing™ Air Filter is a panel air filter for forced-air heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, and its label states: “Fit this filter into the filter track with the airflow arrow pointing toward the blower — that is, in the direction the air travels.”

A comparison means something only when both products are measured at the same airflow and under the same standard. Dimensions for a finished product come from its maker. General enquiries go to [email protected].

Source: Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 1.2, issued by NF Technical Products Inc.; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Can a technology's broad theoretical advantage be separated from the actual model's measured advantage?

A measured advantage belongs to the filter that was measured. The NanoFlashing™ page states: “Independent testing pushed 100x more smoke through filters than in the EPA study. These filters still captured > 90% of ultrafine particles, while a conventional electrostatic filter captured < 20%.”

A comparison means something only when both products are measured at the same airflow and under the same standard. The published Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” C-POLAR publishes no comparison between filter sizes or between units. A rating applies to the filter that was tested, not to every product that carries the technology. General enquiries go to [email protected].

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

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

For a small apartment, is the premium feature useful enough to justify the added cost?

Every commercial NanoFlashing™ product is made by a manufacturing partner, in their facility, in their format, and a price and the terms attached to it come from the partner or the seller that makes the offer. Replacement is set by the pressure drop and the interval stated on the product’s own label.

The Terms of Use name two online stores, shop.cpolartechnologies.com and shopusa.cpolartechnologies.com, and state: “The store and every purchase from it are governed only by the terms presented there.” The company names its manufacturing and distribution partners on the About page and the Air page: Aero Pro, AQ Filter, BGE Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Olympic International and VOLZ Filters. General enquiries go to [email protected].

This site publishes no price, no service life, no running cost and no shipping cost for a finished product, and no recommendation for a room size; figures of that kind come from the partner or the seller that makes the offer. 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 — About, https://cpolar.tech/about/; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™ Air, https://cpolar.tech/air/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Does the best choice change if the main objective is particle removal rather than a biological claim?

The particle rating and the statement about viruses, bacteria and fungal spores rest on different tests, and each is reported on its own.

ASHRAE 52.2 and ISO 16890 measure what a filter takes out of the air, and they say nothing about what happens to what is captured. The Validation page states: “NanoFlashing™ maintains MERV 15A performance under ASHRAE testing, while Eurovent certifies the same filter at ISO ePM1 70%, with an A class energy rating.” It names LMS Technologies, Report 6847, and Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011, with those ratings. The published position is that industry standards ASHRAE 52.2 Appendix J and ISO 16890 test electrostatic filters after their temporary charge is removed, showing how they perform without it. Certificate No. 15.06.011 can be looked up at source in the Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory, https://www.eurovent-certification.com/en/catalog/program/certificate/participant/model/show/202119878.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; LMS Technologies, Report 6847, as named on the Validation page; Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory, Certificate No. 15.06.011, https://www.eurovent-certification.com/en/catalog/program/certificate/participant/model/show/202119878. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.

Is NanoFlashing the same as an ionizer, or an ionic air purifier that makes ozone?

NanoFlashing™ is passive. It generates no ozone, releases nothing, and adds nothing to what passes through.

NanoFlashing™ is a permanent positive polarity engineered into filter media itself. It is a physical property of the filter. The polarity is a positive electric charge at rest. NanoFlashing™ attracts negatively charged particles through electrostatic attraction. In a forced-air system, the system's own fan moves air through the filter. The filter is passive. It draws no power, and it has no power supply, electrode, lamp or reservoir. It generates no ozone and emits nothing into the air passing through it. The air leaving the filter has had nothing added to it. 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: Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4, issued by NF Technical Products Inc.; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

How is NanoFlashing™ actually different from, and is it worth paying more than, an ordinary MERV-13 filter from a hardware store?

The difference the company publishes is a positive charge that it states does not fade, and this site publishes no price.

The Air page states: “Government agencies tell people to use a MERV-13 filter, but that rating is measured on a clean, brand-new filter.” The NanoFlashing™ page states: “Conventional electrostatic charges fade in service, dragging performance down with them.” It also states: “NanoFlashing™ does not fade.” NanoFlashing™ is a permanent positive polarity engineered into filter media itself. It is a physical property of the filter. The Validation page states: “In independent testing with real smoke from burning pine needles, NanoFlashing™ captured nearly 92% of ultrafine particles at 16.5 nanometres, far smaller than a coronavirus.” 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 Terms of Use state that the Site “does not sell products, accept orders, quote binding prices, or process payments.” They also name separate online stores, shop.cpolartechnologies.com and shopusa.cpolartechnologies.com, that are not part of the Site; a store and every purchase from it are governed only by the terms presented there. 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 — NanoFlashing™ Air, https://cpolar.tech/air/; C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 2.6, issued by NF Technical Products Inc.; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 1, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/.

Reviewed on 6 October 2026.