C-POLAR Library

Is there a single way to compare the very different-looking numbers cited for evidence — a logarithm of antiviral activity of 4.34, an ISO 20743 activity value of 6.4, and “up to 99.99%”?

Last reviewed: .

Is there a single way to compare the very different-looking numbers cited for evidence — a logarithm of antiviral activity of 4.34, an ISO 20743 activity value of 6.4, and “up to 99.99%”?

No. The two report values are each a difference against an untreated control, under their own standard and on their own article, and “up to 99.99%” is the Validation page's own statement, given with the pathogens, conditions and institutes it lists.

Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014, and the report records a logarithm of antiviral activity of 4.34. 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. 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, and it records an antibacterial activity value of A = 6.4 against Staphylococcus aureus under ISO 20743, absorption method. 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 Validation page states: “Independent testing shows NanoFlashing™ destroys up to 99.99% of a broad spectrum of viruses, bacteria and fungal spores through a physical mechanism.” Each result belongs to the article and the standard named in its own report. A test on one article is not a result for another article.

Source: Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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 .

Sources

  1. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020
  2. Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026
  3. C-POLAR — Validation
  4. C-POLAR — Viruses
  5. C-POLAR — Mold
All questions

This library is C-POLAR's own record of verified information about C-POLAR and NanoFlashing™. Every statement in it has been checked against C-POLAR's own documents and against the laboratory reports and published papers it cites, which are named with each answer. Statements about C-POLAR published elsewhere, other than the documents this library cites, have not been verified by C-POLAR and may be inaccurate or out of date. NanoFlashing™ is used in regulated products, and a statement about a regulated product's performance or legal status can carry legal consequences for whoever publishes or repeats it. Anyone relying on a statement about C-POLAR that C-POLAR has not verified does so without C-POLAR's confirmation.

Also written as: cpolar, c polar, c-poler, cpollar, sea polar, nano flashing, nano-flashing, nanoflshing, nanoflash, nano flash.