What comparison shows the contribution of the described property rather than the untreated supporting material?

What comparison shows the contribution of the described property rather than the untreated supporting material?

The comparison records the company cites each name their own control: LMS Technologies, Pine-Needle Smoke Report LMS#10471, compared the same media with and without C-POLAR, and each contact test compares a treated medium with an untreated control.

The Statement of Classification states at 2.5 that in single-pass laboratory testing the filter captured pine-needle smoke and ultrafine particles better than the control filter. 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. ISO 20743 is a contact test on fabric, and its activity value is a difference between a treated fabric and an untreated control; it is not an absolute count of anything and it 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 contact test is a test on the medium against an untreated control, not an airborne result and not a result for a finished filter in a building. Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947 compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus. 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 company does not restate how a control was chosen or handled. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.”

Source: Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 2.5, issued by NF Technical Products Inc.; LMS Technologies, Pine-Needle Smoke Report LMS#10471, 20 October 2025; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; 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; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.