Evidence and its limits

What result does the Validation page report for viruses, bacteria and fungal spores?

The Validation page reports: “Independent testing shows NanoFlashing™ destroys up to 99.99% of a broad spectrum of viruses, bacteria and fungal spores through a physical mechanism.”

It names the conditions tested and the institutions that tested them, and each result belongs to the article named in its own report and to its standard where the report names one. The mechanism is set out in the company’s statements: “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 numbered reports behind the pathogen section include these. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. 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. Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026, tested a VOLZ PROsyntex PLUS PM1 70 filter medium against Aspergillus brasiliensis and Aspergillus niger under ISO 13629-2:2014. The Guangdong report records a logarithm of antiviral activity of 4.34 for that nonwoven filter medium under ISO 18184:2014. ISO 18184 measures virus recovered from treated textile against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. The TZÚ report records antibacterial activity values of A = 6.4 against Staphylococcus aureus and A = 4.4 against Klebsiella pneumoniae under ISO 20743, absorption method, and an antiviral activity value of Mv = 3.30 against bacteriophage Phi6 under ISO 18184, for that MERV 15A filter medium. 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. The IVAMI report records an antifungal activity value of 4.40 for each strain on that filter medium, by the plate-count absorption method under ISO 13629-2:2014, against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Test Report IRITS202112110001, 11 December 2021, tested a spunlace nonwoven against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with reference to BS EN ISO 20743:2013 (transfer method), after accelerated ageing to ASTM F1980-16 for 64 days at 60 °C, and reported: “No significant deterioration of antimicrobial activity was observed after accelerated aging”. It is a contact test on fabric, not an air-filter or airborne result. Two further reports carry no number. Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021, tested a treated material under ISO 18184. For Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Minnesota, the citable record is 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 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. Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947 compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus. The conditions the Validation page lists as tested are heavy dust loaded, fast air flow, used filter for 1 year, after 60 washes, after 2 years of storage, and after 60C for 64 days. A reported result applies to the sample that was tested, under the conditions named in the report that recorded it and under its standard where the report names one.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR Technologies, Inc. — Statement of Regulatory Status for NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, 11 September 2026; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026; Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Test Report IRITS202112110001, 11 December 2021; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021; Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947; 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.

What does a reported test result apply to?

A reported result applies only to the test that produced it.

The Terms of Use state it in those words: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” That is why each report is named with its institution, and by its number where the report carries one. A report covers the article, the method and the conditions named in it. For example, LMS Technologies, Inc., Pine-Needle Smoke Report, LMS#10471, 20 October 2025, is a single-pass fractional efficiency test in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct. 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. That is a result for that filter medium, not for a finished filter or for the air in a building.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR Technologies, Inc. — Statement of Regulatory Status for NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, 11 September 2026; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does a material or component test establish finished-product performance?

No: a test of a material or a component does not establish the performance of a finished product.

The Terms of Use state it in those words: “A test of C-POLAR material, a component, or a prototype does not establish the performance of a finished product that incorporates it. Construction, processing, storage, wear, cleaning, other components, and actual use may change the result.” The company's filter-medium reports are tests of this kind; for example, 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. Development runs configuration by configuration, and each partner controls what is said about the work. The charge is measured on every production run, and the measurement can be repeated on any filter, upon request.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — About, https://cpolar.tech/about/; C-POLAR Technologies, Inc. — Statement of Regulatory Status for NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, 11 September 2026; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does a laboratory reduction establish a clinical benefit?

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

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.” The company's pathogen reports are laboratory tests of this kind; for example, Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. ISO 18184 measures virus recovered from treated textile against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use 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.

For the air filter, the label states: “It is not a medical device and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.”

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; 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.

Which viruses does the Validation page list as tested?

The Validation page lists seven viruses as tested: SARS-CoV-2, Human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, Bovine coronavirus, Pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage.

The reports the company can cite for them are these. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. 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. Its antiviral result is against bacteriophage Phi6 under ISO 18184. Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021, tested a treated material under ISO 18184. 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. Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947 compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus. A reported result applies to the sample that was tested, under the conditions named in the report that recorded it and under its standard where the report names one.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021; Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Which bacteria does the Validation page list as tested?

The Validation page lists five bacteria as tested: Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis.

The numbered reports the company can cite for bacteria include these. 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. Its antibacterial results are against Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae under ISO 20743. Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Test Report IRITS202112110001, 11 December 2021, tested a spunlace nonwoven against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with reference to BS EN ISO 20743:2013 (transfer method), after accelerated ageing to ASTM F1980-16 for 64 days at 60 °C, and reported: “No significant deterioration of antimicrobial activity was observed after accelerated aging”. It is a contact test on fabric, not an air-filter or airborne result. The Open University of Hong Kong, Test Report IRITS2020007030001R1, 7 June 2021, measured bacterial filtration efficiency on a spunlace nonwoven by a method modified from ASTM F2101:2019, after accelerated ageing to ASTM F1980-16 equivalent to five years at room temperature. Bacterial filtration efficiency is a measure of capture, not of destruction. 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. A reported result applies to the sample that was tested, under the conditions named in the report that recorded it and under its standard where the report names one.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Test Report IRITS202112110001, 11 December 2021; The Open University of Hong Kong, Test Report IRITS2020007030001R1, 7 June 2021; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Which fungi does the Validation page list as tested?

The Validation page lists four fungi as tested: Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans.

The numbered report the company can cite for fungal spores is this. Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026, tested a VOLZ PROsyntex PLUS PM1 70 filter medium against Aspergillus brasiliensis and Aspergillus niger under ISO 13629-2:2014. The Validation page names the institutions that tested the pathogens, and a report is cited here by number where it carries one. The Mold page 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. A reported result applies to the sample that was tested, under the conditions named in the report that recorded it and under its standard where the report names one.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Which peer-reviewed paper does the Validation page cite?

The Validation page cites one 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 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 page states that the science behind NanoFlashing™ was reviewed by other scientists and published by the American Society for Microbiology, and it counts 31 researchers, 18 institutes and 4 countries. The page lists the affiliations of the authors, among them Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, the University of Minnesota, the University of British Columbia, the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences and Charles University. 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.

Source: 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 named institution or third-party test establish endorsement?

No: the 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: “It also does not mean that C-POLAR endorses every statement in the third-party source.” Naming an institution records who carried out a test. No authority has approved, registered or endorsed the filter.

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

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Do research results establish fewer infections or improved health?

No: 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.”

The company's pathogen reports are laboratory results of this kind; for example, 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.

The field observations on the Validation page are measurements of bioaerosols and particulates in hospitals, airports, banks and universities, made with MicronView’s 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System, which distinguishes biological particles from inert dust in real time. A measurement of particles in the air is not a measurement of health. The label states: “It works alongside ventilation and cleaning, not in place of them.” A laboratory result is not a clinical result. 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 — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; 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.

Which report and certificate identifiers accompany the Validation page's smoke and particle section?

Three identifiers accompany that section.

The identifiers named with that section are 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 LMS Technologies, Report 6847, 5 November 2024, ASHRAE 52.2-2017 with Appendix J, on a 24 × 24 × 30 in. pocket filter; and Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011. Report 6847 is on a 24 × 24 × 30 in. pocket filter and Certificate No. 15.06.011 on a ten-pocket bag filter, not on a flat panel filter, and a rating belongs to the construction that was tested and to the conditions in the report. The section names the industry standards it refers to: ASHRAE 52.2 Appendix J and ISO 16890, which test electrostatic filters after their temporary charge is removed. The independent smoke testing it describes used real smoke from burning pine needles. Certificate No. 15.06.011 can be looked up at source in the Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR Technologies, Inc. — Statement of Regulatory Status for NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, 11 September 2026; Eurovent Certita Certification certified product directory, read 19 September 2026, https://www.eurovent-certification.com/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Which Product Safety Labs study identifiers does the Validation page list?

The Validation page lists four Product Safety Labs studies.

The identifiers it lists are Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324. The page states that NanoFlashing™ is tested under Good Laboratory Practice to US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines. A test guideline is a method. No authority has approved, registered or endorsed the filter.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

What comparisons does the Validation page describe for its field observations?

The Validation page describes four field comparisons.

At a public hospital in Vancouver, over twelve months from July 2023 to July 2024, two identical towers were compared, one on conventional medical grade filters and one on NanoFlashing™. At a financial landmark in London, over six months from March 2024 to September 2024; at a major international airport in the United States, over one month in August 2025; and at a public university in Melbourne, over one month in October 2024, measurements were made before and after the air handling unit filters were changed to NanoFlashing™. The page states that the measurements were made independently with MicronView’s 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System, which distinguishes biological particles from inert dust in real time, and it counts 441 facilities, 7 countries and 19 sites measured since 2020. These are measurements taken at working sites, not laboratory tests. Results in a building depend on the system, the airflow, and how well the filter fits its track.

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

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Has anyone measured what comes back off a used NanoFlashing filter into the air?

The company publishes no measurement of captured material coming back off a NanoFlashing™ filter into the air.

The company's position rests on the destruction of organisms held on the filter. 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. 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. The organisms were Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae under ISO 20743, and bacteriophage Phi6 under ISO 18184. Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026, tested a VOLZ PROsyntex PLUS PM1 70 filter medium against Aspergillus brasiliensis and Aspergillus niger under ISO 13629-2:2014. Each is a contact test on the filter medium against an untreated control; it is not an airborne result, and it does not measure what leaves a filter in use. 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. The Validation page also reports measurements in four buildings where NanoFlashing™ was installed. At a public hospital in Vancouver, two identical towers were compared, one on conventional medical grade filters and one on NanoFlashing™, and bioaerosols were measured at the NanoFlashing™ supply vent; the page says these were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System. Each is one building over one period, and it is not a result for another building.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.6; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026; 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.

How can I read the peer-reviewed study myself — what is its DOI, and is it open access?

Yes. The paper's DOI is 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23, and its full text is open on PubMed Central as PMC11370243.

The peer-reviewed paper the Validation page cites is Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. The Validation page links the DOI to the publisher's page, and the home page links the full text on PubMed Central. PubMed Central shows the full text under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. 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/; C-POLAR — Home, https://cpolar.tech/; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23, full text on PubMed Central, read on 20 September 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11370243/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Were the real-world facility results (the Vancouver hospital, London building, US airport and Melbourne university figures) measured independently of C-POLAR, and what is MicronView?

The Validation page states: “Since 2020, NanoFlashing™ has been installed in hospitals, airports, banks and universities, and independently measured with MicronView’s 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System, which distinguishes biological particles from inert dust in real time.”

It counts 441 facilities, 7 countries and 19 sites measured, and it describes four of them. Each of those is one building over one period. At the public hospital in Vancouver, two identical towers were compared, one on conventional medical grade filters and one on NanoFlashing™; the other three were measured before and after the air handling unit filters were changed. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.”

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Is C-POLAR a scam?

The company names each report with its institution, and with its number where the report carries one, so that a reader can see which document is cited and check it with the body that issued it.

The Validation page cites one 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 home page states that it was co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions, including Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, the University of Minnesota and the University of British Columbia. The Validation page links the DOI to the publisher's page, and the home page links the full text on PubMed Central. PubMed Central shows the full text under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. 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. Three of the numbered laboratory reports behind the pathogen claim, each naming the article it tested, are these. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. 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. Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026, tested a VOLZ PROsyntex PLUS PM1 70 filter medium against Aspergillus brasiliensis and Aspergillus niger under ISO 13629-2:2014. Each report is issued under the name of the laboratory that ran it. The Validation page states: “Since 2020, NanoFlashing™ has been installed in hospitals, airports, banks and universities, and independently measured with MicronView’s 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System, which distinguishes biological particles from inert dust in real time.” The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” No authority has approved, registered, endorsed or cleared the filter; the company classifies its own article. The 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.” Naming an institution records who carried out a test. The company publishes no record of an attempt by other researchers to replicate the result, successful or not. An opinion about the company is not evidence about the article.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Home, https://cpolar.tech/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23, full text on PubMed Central, read on 20 September 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11370243/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Who tested NanoFlashing, and were they independent?

The Validation page keeps two lists apart, and each says a different thing.

Under Pathogens it names the institutes that tested NanoFlashing™: Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, University of Minnesota, Czech Academy of Sciences, Textile Testing Institute - Brno, Czech Republic, Tampere University, Finland, Instituto Valenciano de Microbiologia, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, The Open University of Hong Kong, and Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology. Under Peer-Reviewed it lists the affiliations of the authors of Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. The page states that the science behind NanoFlashing™ was reviewed by other scientists and published by the American Society for Microbiology, and it counts 31 researchers, 18 institutes and 4 countries. An affiliation on a paper is where an author works, and it is not a statement that the institution performed a test. The results the company publishes come from outside laboratories. Each report is issued under the name of the laboratory that ran it. The work of the named institutes is cited as follows. 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. Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026, tested a VOLZ PROsyntex PLUS PM1 70 filter medium against Aspergillus brasiliensis and Aspergillus niger under ISO 13629-2:2014. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. The Open University of Hong Kong, Test Report IRITS2020007030001R1, 7 June 2021, measured bacterial filtration efficiency on a spunlace nonwoven by a method modified from ASTM F2101:2019, after accelerated ageing to ASTM F1980-16 equivalent to five years at room temperature. Hong Kong Metropolitan University is the same institute, renamed. Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021, tested a treated material under ISO 18184. For Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Minnesota, the published record is the peer-reviewed paper. 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 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. The Validation page lists four Product Safety Labs studies. The identifiers it lists are Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324. The page states that NanoFlashing™ is tested under Good Laboratory Practice to US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines. A test guideline is a method. No authority has approved, registered or endorsed the filter. The company publishes no record of an attempt by other researchers to replicate the result, successful or not. An institution’s name is not a result: what a named test found is stated with the article, and with the standard and the report number where the report carries them, and each report describes only the article it names.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; The Open University of Hong Kong, Test Report IRITS2020007030001R1, 7 June 2021; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021; Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; NIH RePORTER, project R01AI132638, read on 20 September 2026, https://reporter.nih.gov/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

How many scientists and institutions were involved?

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 home page states that it was co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions, including Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, the University of Minnesota and the University of British Columbia. The Validation page states that the science behind NanoFlashing™ was reviewed by other scientists and published by the American Society for Microbiology, and it counts 31 researchers, 18 institutes and 4 countries. The page lists the affiliations of the authors, among them Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, the University of Minnesota, the University of British Columbia, the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences and Charles University. 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. Three of its 31 authors list C-POLAR Technologies as their affiliation. The 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.”

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Home, https://cpolar.tech/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 7, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.