Can ingestion evidence be used to support an inhalation claim without a justified bridge?
Last reviewed: .
Can ingestion evidence be used to support an inhalation claim without a justified bridge?
No: the company does not use its acute oral study, Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, as evidence about inhalation, and none of the four health-effects studies it names is an inhalation study.
The Validation page names Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324, and states that NanoFlashing™ is tested under Good Laboratory Practice to US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines. Each study report prints its guideline and its completion date: Study 65321, U.S. EPA OPPTS 870.1100 (2002), 26 January 2024; Study 65322, OPPTS 870.1200 (1998), 16 January 2024; Study 65323, OPPTS 870.2500 (1998), 16 February 2024; and Study 65324, OPPTS 870.2600 (2003), by the Buehler method, 31 January 2024. The page names no study addressing eye exposure and no study addressing inhalation exposure, and the company does not carry a result across to an exposure route a study did not cover.
What it states about what the filter gives off is this. NanoFlashing™ is passive. It generates no ozone, releases nothing, and adds nothing to what passes through. The air leaving the filter has had nothing added to it. That statement is not a measurement of fibres, fragments or dissolved matter. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.
Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324, 2024; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 2.4, issued by NF Technical Products Inc.
Reviewed on .
Sources
- C-POLAR — Validation
- Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324, 2024, U.S. EPA OPPTS 870.1100, 870.1200, 870.2500 and 870.2600
- Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 2.4, issued by NF Technical Products Inc