How were the tested organisms chosen, and what justifies the breadth of the resulting claim?

How were the tested organisms chosen, and what justifies the breadth of the resulting claim?

The company names every organism its testing covered, and it carries no result to an organism a test did not cover.

On the Validation page the viruses are SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, bovine coronavirus, pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage; the bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis; the fungi are Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans. Each organism belongs to the record that tested it. 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. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. 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. 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, is the record for the work of Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Minnesota. The paper 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. A second peer-reviewed paper, Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947, compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus. Each is a laboratory test on the article it names, not a result for a finished filter in a building.

Why a particular organism was chosen is a matter for the report that tested it. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.”

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; 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; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.