What primary evidence explains the changes among the historical and current headline percentage claims?

What primary evidence explains the changes among the historical and current headline percentage claims?

The company publishes no change log, and the wording it stands behind is the current wording on its pages.

Each answer in this library carries the date it was last reviewed, and an older wording found elsewhere is not the company's current wording. The primary evidence is the laboratory record, named by its institution, its report number where the report carries one, its date, its standard where the report names one, and the article 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 of these is a laboratory test on a filter medium against an untreated control, and it is not a result for a finished filter or for the air in a building. 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. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); C-POLAR — Viruses (https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/); C-POLAR — Mold (https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 2.6, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.