Was a negative or unhelpful comparison omitted from the public summary?

Was a negative or unhelpful comparison omitted from the public summary?

In the side-by-side smoke comparison the company cites, it gives the size at which the media with C-POLAR captured slightly less as well as the sizes at which it captured more, and it names its reports rather than publishing them.

LMS Technologies, Pine-Needle Smoke Report LMS#10471, 20 October 2025, compared a 24 × 24 × 2 in. pleated air filter of Aeropro media with C-POLAR against the same media without it, single-pass in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct: the initial fractional efficiency with C-POLAR was higher at every particle size from 22 to 604 nanometres, for example 83.6% against 57.8% at 52 nanometres, and slightly lower at 16.5 nanometres; it is an initial laboratory result on clean media, not a result over a service life or in a building. The Validation page names each report and certificate in its tested and certified list by institution and number, including LMS Technologies, Report LMS#9904, 28 April 2025, a single-pass fractional efficiency test on a 24 × 24 × 2 in. pleated air filter in an ASHRAE 52.2 test duct, in accordance with standard LMS aerosol test procedures, and Report 6847, ASHRAE 52.2 with Appendix J, Intertek Building & Construction, Report 105175501SAT-001, Product Safety Labs, Studies 65321 to 65324, and RST Rail System Testing, Reports P60-22-0003 and P60-24-0297. Report 6847 is on a 24 × 24 × 30 in. pocket filter, not on a flat panel filter, and a rating belongs to the construction that was tested and to the conditions in the report. A copy may be made available on our review of the request. Confidentiality obligations may apply to a given report. A link that fails, and the absence of a file to download, say nothing about what a named report contains.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; LMS Technologies, Pine-Needle Smoke Report LMS#10471, 20 October 2025.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.