Were capture and loss of biological activity measured separately, and how are their results distinguished?

Were capture and loss of biological activity measured separately, and how are their results distinguished?

Capture and destruction are different endpoints: filtration tests measure capture, contact tests on filter media measure destruction, and the Viruses and Mold pages describe airborne tests, each with NanoFlashing™ beside a control.

Capture is measured by a filtration 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; the Validation page states that those standards test electrostatic filters after their temporary charge is removed. In the numbered reports, destruction is measured on a submitted sample under a contact standard such as ISO 20743, whose activity value is a difference between a treated fabric and an untreated control and is not an airborne result. The numbered reports on the pathogen testing of filter media are these. 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. 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. Each is a contact test on the medium against an untreated control, not an airborne result and not a result for a finished filter in a building. 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 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, 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. The company's statement of the mechanism is that the filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures, on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge.

A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 2.6, issued by NF Technical Products Inc.; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.