Can a filter be called antimicrobial even if its particle-removal rating is modest?
Last reviewed: .
Can a filter be called antimicrobial even if its particle-removal rating is modest?
The company does not apply that word to its product.
Its published description is the mechanism. NanoFlashing™ attracts negatively charged particles through electrostatic attraction. When a captured pollutant has a fragile structure, NanoFlashing™ destroys it on contact through a physical mechanism. A capture rating and a contact test measure different things. What a filter takes out of the air is measured in air, under ASHRAE 52.2 and ISO 16890. What happens to an organism held against a surface is measured by contact testing on a sample of material. A contact result is not an airborne filtration result, and neither one stands in for the other. 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.
Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™, https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/.
Reviewed on .
All questions