What evidence addresses the physical-or-mechanical-action criterion in BPR Article 3 for the exact product placed on the market?

What evidence addresses the physical-or-mechanical-action criterion in BPR Article 3 for the exact product placed on the market?

The evidence the company sets out on the physical-or-mechanical-action criterion is its own Statement of Regulatory Status and the single-pass laboratory test named in it.

The Statement of Regulatory Status addresses that criterion at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6 and 3.4, for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter itself. 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. The filter is passive. It draws no power, and it has no power supply, electrode, lamp or reservoir. The air leaving the filter has had nothing added to it. The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction. 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 charge is measured on every production run, and the measurement can be repeated on any filter, upon request. The statement also records a single-pass laboratory test in which the filter captured pine-needle smoke and ultrafine particles better than the control filter, and smoke is neither a pest nor alive: LMS Technologies, Inc., Pine-Needle Smoke Report, LMS#10471, 20 October 2025, single-pass fractional efficiency, ASHRAE 52.2 test duct. The filter is not a biocidal product and not a treated article. The Regulation therefore does not apply to the filter.

Source: C-POLAR Technologies, Inc. — Statement of Regulatory Status for NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, 11 September 2026. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.