What evidence exists that NanoFlashing reduces airborne pathogens?

What evidence exists that NanoFlashing reduces airborne pathogens?

Capture and destruction are different endpoints: filtration tests measure capture, contact tests on filter media measure destruction, and the Viruses and Mold pages describe airborne tests, each with NanoFlashing™ beside a control.

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 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, 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. 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 is a contact test on the medium against an untreated control, not an airborne result and not a result for a finished filter in a building. The laboratory testing concerns the material and the filter, and 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 other three were measured before and after the air handling unit filters were changed to NanoFlashing™. The Validation 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. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.”

Source: C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, 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; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947; 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. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.