What evidence shows whether airflow, contact time or other operating conditions in our device fall within the tested scope?
Last reviewed: .
What evidence shows whether airflow, contact time or other operating conditions in our device fall within the tested scope?
The Terms of Use state that a test of C-POLAR material, a component, or a prototype does not establish the performance of a finished product that incorporates it, and that construction, processing, storage, wear, cleaning, other components, and actual use may change the result.
The Validation page names what was tested, the conditions and the institutions, and it gives report and certificate numbers for the air-filtration, certification and safety records, so a requirement can be matched to a named test or found not to be covered by one. The conditions listed there 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, and the standards named for capture are ASHRAE 52.2 Appendix J and ISO 16890. 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 Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.”
A capture standard is not a destruction standard: ASHRAE 52.2 and ISO 16890 measure what a filter takes out of the air, and they say nothing about what happens to what is captured.
Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/.
Reviewed on .
All questions