What evidence, beyond the ozone and no-addition wording, supports any claimed environmental or lifetime-cost advantage?
Last reviewed: .
What evidence, beyond the ozone and no-addition wording, supports any claimed environmental or lifetime-cost advantage?
The company publishes no lifetime-cost claim; on energy it publishes one measured building and the energy class on the Eurovent certificate named on the Validation page.
The Validation page names Eurovent Certita Certification, Certificate No. 15.06.011, which certifies a ten-pocket bag filter at ISO ePM1 70% with an A class energy rating; a rating belongs to the construction that was tested. The Validation page reports measurements at an installation it describes by kind and place, made before and after the air handling unit filters were changed to NanoFlashing™, at a financial landmark in London over six months from March 2024 to September 2024. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” They also state: “Use evidence, specifications, instructions, and warnings specific to the actual finished product and use.” That is one building over one period, measured after a filter change in its own air handling units; it is not an energy figure for another system, another filter configuration or another loading condition. 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 — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/).
Reviewed on .
All questions