Viruses

Which viruses does the Validation page list as tested?

The Validation page lists seven viruses as tested: SARS-CoV-2, Human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, Bovine coronavirus, Pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage.

The reports the company can cite for them are these. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. 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. Its antiviral result is against bacteriophage Phi6 under ISO 18184. Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021, tested a treated material under ISO 18184. The peer-reviewed paper is Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. The paper 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. Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947 compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus. A reported result applies to the sample that was tested, under the conditions named in the report that recorded it and under its standard where the report names one.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021; Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does a claim about a virus refer to an infectious endpoint or only detection of genetic material?

The company has not published, on its pages, which endpoint each test measured.

The peer-reviewed publication behind the technology is Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, doi:10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. 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. ISO 18184 measures virus recovered from treated textile against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. 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 Validation page names the institutes that tested NanoFlashing™, and the endpoint a given test measured is in that test’s own report. Enquiries go to [email protected]. The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/), C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/) and C-POLAR — Contact (https://cpolar.tech/contact/); Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, ISO 18184:2014; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026, ISO 20743 and ISO 18184; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Is evidence for an enveloped virus being extended to non-enveloped viruses?

The viruses tested are named one by one, and each result belongs to the virus it was run on.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The company names the organisms that were tested. On the Validation page the viruses are SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, bovine coronavirus, pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage; the bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis; the fungi are Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans. Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. ISO 18184 measures virus recovered from treated textile against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. 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 filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” The test article, the organism, the method, the control, the conditions, the contact time, the sample and the endpoint identified in a report are the limits of what that report shows. The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, ISO 18184:2014; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Once the filter has caught a virus or bacteria, can it come loose and go back into the room?

The Validation page states that on a conventional filter, captured microbes “remain viable on the filter for weeks to months and are released back into the air,” and that NanoFlashing™ “won’t.”

The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction. The Validation page’s sentence rests on the destruction of the organisms held on the filter. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. 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. The organisms were Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae under ISO 20743, and bacteriophage Phi6 under 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. Each is a contact test on the filter medium against an untreated control; it is not an airborne result, and it does not measure what leaves a filter in use. 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 Validation page also reports measurements in four buildings where NanoFlashing™ was installed. At a public hospital in Vancouver, two identical towers were compared, one on conventional medical grade filters and one on NanoFlashing™, and bioaerosols were measured at the NanoFlashing™ supply vent; the page says these were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System. Each is one building over one period, and it is not a result for another building.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., sections 2.5 and 2.6; 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; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does NanoFlashing kill the virus that causes COVID?

In a laboratory test, live SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was reduced on contact with treated material; that test did not pass the virus through a filter in moving air.

Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021, tested a treated material under ISO 18184. The virus in that test was live SARS-CoV-2; it is a contact test on the material against an untreated control, not an airborne result. 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 filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The peer-reviewed paper is Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. The paper 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. A second peer-reviewed paper, Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947, compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus, and reports that the treated filter captured more of it. That virus is the pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2 named on the Validation page, a laboratory model, not live SARS-CoV-2. Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. Neither of those two viruses is SARS-CoV-2. Each of these is a laboratory result; none is a result on a filter in use in a building, and none measures COVID-19 in people.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.6; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41245-8; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021; Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Has NanoFlashing been tested against SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus?

In a laboratory test, live SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was reduced on contact with treated material; that test did not pass the virus through a filter in moving air.

Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021, tested a treated material under ISO 18184. The virus in that test was live SARS-CoV-2; it is a contact test on the material against an untreated control, not an airborne result. 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 filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The peer-reviewed paper is Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. The paper 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. A second peer-reviewed paper, Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947, compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus, and reports that the treated filter captured more of it. That virus is the pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2 named on the Validation page, a laboratory model, not live SARS-CoV-2. Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. Neither of those two viruses is SARS-CoV-2. Each of these is a laboratory result; none is a result on a filter in use in a building, and none measures COVID-19 in people.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.6; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41245-8; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021; Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

The list of viruses tested says human coronavirus 229E. Is that the COVID virus?

No. Human coronavirus 229E and SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, are two different coronaviruses, and the Validation page lists them as two separate viruses tested.

Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. A result on one virus is not a result on another.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does NanoFlashing work against flu viruses?

In a laboratory contact test, influenza A virus (H3N2) recovered from a treated nonwoven filter medium was lower than from an untreated control.

Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014, and the report records a logarithm of antiviral activity of 4.34 for that medium against an untreated control. ISO 18184 measures virus recovered from treated textile against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. 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 filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.6; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, ISO 18184:2014; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Would NanoFlashing work against bird flu or the next pandemic virus?

The company makes no claim for H5N1 bird flu or for any future pandemic virus.

On the Validation page the viruses tested are SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, bovine coronavirus, pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.”

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc., section 2.6.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

How can a filter destroy viruses without a chemical?

NanoFlashing™ destroys a captured virus on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge.

NanoFlashing™ is a permanent positive polarity engineered into filter media itself. It is a physical property of the filter. The polarity is a positive electric charge at rest. NanoFlashing™ attracts negatively charged particles through electrostatic attraction. The NanoFlashing™ page states: “Once attracted, the particle is captured by NanoFlashing™. When a captured pollutant has a fragile structure, NanoFlashing™ destroys it on contact through a physical mechanism.” Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. ISO 18184 measures virus recovered from treated textile against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. 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/; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 2.6, issued by NF Technical Products Inc.; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, ISO 18184:2014; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Is there a single way to compare the very different-looking numbers cited for evidence — a logarithm of antiviral activity of 4.34, an ISO 20743 activity value of 6.4, and “up to 99.99%”?

No. The two report values are each a difference against an untreated control, under their own standard and on their own article, and “up to 99.99%” is the Validation page's own statement, given with the pathogens, conditions and institutes it lists.

Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014, and the report records a logarithm of antiviral activity of 4.34. ISO 18184 measures virus recovered from treated textile against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. 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, and it records an antibacterial activity value of A = 6.4 against Staphylococcus aureus under ISO 20743, absorption method. An activity value is a difference against an untreated control fabric. It is not a percentage destroyed and not an airborne result. 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 Validation page states: “Independent testing shows NanoFlashing™ destroys up to 99.99% of a broad spectrum of viruses, bacteria and fungal spores through a physical mechanism.” Each result belongs to the article and the standard named in its own report. A test on one article is not a result for another article.

Source: Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Was the COVID test done with live virus blown through the actual air filter, or with something else?

No. Live SARS-CoV-2 was placed on a small piece of treated nonwoven material in a laboratory contact test, and the tests that carried virus through a filter in moving air used bovine coronavirus and a pseudotyped model virus.

The peer-reviewed paper is Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23. The paper 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. A second peer-reviewed paper, Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947, compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus, and reports that the treated filter captured more of it. That virus is the pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2 named on the Validation page, a laboratory model, not live SARS-CoV-2. A result on a small piece of material is not a result on a finished air filter, and a result on one virus is not a result on another.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41245-8.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

What result does the Validation page report for viruses, bacteria and fungal spores?

The Validation page reports: “Independent testing shows NanoFlashing™ destroys up to 99.99% of a broad spectrum of viruses, bacteria and fungal spores through a physical mechanism.”

It names the conditions tested and the institutions that tested them, and each result belongs to the article named in its own report and to its standard where the report names one. The mechanism is set out in the company’s statements: “The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge.” The numbered reports behind the pathogen section include these. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. 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. The Guangdong report records a logarithm of antiviral activity of 4.34 for that nonwoven filter medium under ISO 18184:2014. ISO 18184 measures virus recovered from treated textile against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. The TZÚ report records antibacterial activity values of A = 6.4 against Staphylococcus aureus and A = 4.4 against Klebsiella pneumoniae under ISO 20743, absorption method, and an antiviral activity value of Mv = 3.30 against bacteriophage Phi6 under ISO 18184, for that MERV 15A filter medium. An activity value is a difference against an untreated control fabric. It is not a percentage destroyed and not an airborne result. 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 IVAMI report records an antifungal activity value of 4.40 for each strain on that filter medium, by the plate-count absorption method under ISO 13629-2:2014, against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Test Report IRITS202112110001, 11 December 2021, tested a spunlace nonwoven against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa with reference to BS EN ISO 20743:2013 (transfer method), after accelerated ageing to ASTM F1980-16 for 64 days at 60 °C, and reported: “No significant deterioration of antimicrobial activity was observed after accelerated aging”. It is a contact test on fabric, not an air-filter or airborne result. Two further reports carry no number. Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021, tested a treated material under ISO 18184. For Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Minnesota, the citable record is 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. The paper 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. Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947 compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus. The conditions the Validation page lists as tested are heavy dust loaded, fast air flow, used filter for 1 year, after 60 washes, after 2 years of storage, and after 60C for 64 days. A reported result applies to the sample that was tested, under the conditions named in the report that recorded it and under its standard where the report names one.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR Technologies, Inc. — Statement of Regulatory Status for NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, 11 September 2026; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020; 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; Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Test Report IRITS202112110001, 11 December 2021; Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021; Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, report dated 29 April 2021; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, September 2024, doi 10.1128/spectrum.04097-23, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does the Tampere result measure capture or destruction?

The company has not published which endpoint the Tampere University testing measured.

Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021, tested a treated material against human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6. It carries no report number, and the organisms it covered are human coronavirus 229E and Coxsackievirus B6, not SARS-CoV-2.

The company's position is that the filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures, that it destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge, and that the filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction. The Validation page names Tampere University, Finland among the institutes that tested NanoFlashing™, and the Viruses page names it among those that tested the viruses listed there. Enquiries go to [email protected].

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/), C-POLAR — Viruses (https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/) and C-POLAR — Contact (https://cpolar.tech/contact/); Tampere University, Department of Virology, report dated 1 April 2021. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does a result for one strain support the broader species wording used in a claim?

A result for one strain is a result for that strain, and the company names each organism it tested.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. On the Validation page the viruses are SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, bovine coronavirus, pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage; the bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis; the fungi are Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans. 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. It reports activity values against Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae under ISO 20743, and against bacteriophage Phi6 under ISO 18184. An activity value is a difference against an untreated control fabric. It is not a percentage destroyed and not an airborne result. 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. 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. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” The test article, the organism, the method, the control, the conditions, the contact time, the sample and the endpoint identified in a report are the limits of what that report shows. The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026, ISO 20743 and ISO 18184; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026, ISO 13629-2:2014; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does evidence concerning vegetative bacteria support wording about bacterial spores?

The company names the bacteria tested, and it publishes no separate result for bacterial spores.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The company names the organisms that were tested. On the Validation page the viruses are SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, bovine coronavirus, pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage; the bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis; the fungi are Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans. 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. It reports activity values against Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae under ISO 20743, and against bacteriophage Phi6 under ISO 18184. An activity value is a difference against an untreated control fabric. It is not a percentage destroyed and not an airborne result. 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 filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” The test article, the organism, the method, the control, the conditions, the contact time, the sample and the endpoint identified in a report are the limits of what that report shows. The company's published wording names fungal spores, and it does not name bacterial spores. The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026, ISO 20743 and ISO 18184; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does a fungal claim distinguish spores from other fungal material?

The company's published wording is fungal spores, and the fungi tested are named.

The company names the organisms that were tested. On the Validation page the viruses are SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, bovine coronavirus, pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage; the bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis; the fungi are Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” The test article, the organism, the method, the control, the conditions, the contact time, the sample and the endpoint identified in a report are the limits of what that report shows. 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026, ISO 13629-2:2014. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Can loss of viability be mistaken for removal of allergenic material?

No. Destroying a captured organism is not the same as removing allergenic material, and the company keeps the two apart: its pages state that NanoFlashing™ attracts and captures pollen, and its Statement of Classification states that the filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction. NanoFlashing™ attracts negatively charged particles through electrostatic attraction. Once attracted, the particle is captured by NanoFlashing™. When a captured pollutant has a fragile structure, NanoFlashing™ destroys it on contact through a physical mechanism. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The company publishes no allergen measurement. The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — NanoFlashing™ (https://cpolar.tech/nanoflashing/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does the claimed effect address residual toxins independently of organism viability?

The company's claim is about the organism captured by the charge, and it publishes nothing about toxins.

The company's position is that the filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures, that it destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The paper 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 Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.”

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does a public target list distinguish organisms actually evaluated from organisms mentioned only as examples?

Yes.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The Validation page lists the organisms under the heading of what was tested, together with the institutes that tested them. The company names the organisms that were tested. On the Validation page the viruses are SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, bovine coronavirus, pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage; the bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis; the fungi are Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. 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. It reports activity values against Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae under ISO 20743, and against bacteriophage Phi6 under 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. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” The test article, the organism, the method, the control, the conditions, the contact time, the sample and the endpoint identified in a report are the limits of what that report shows. The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, ISO 18184:2014; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026, ISO 20743 and ISO 18184; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026, ISO 13629-2:2014. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does the evidence concern contaminants on the material or contaminants leaving the complete product?

The laboratory testing concerns the material and the filter, and the Validation page also reports measurements in four buildings where NanoFlashing™ was installed.

At a public hospital in Vancouver, two identical towers were compared, one on conventional medical grade filters and one on NanoFlashing™, and bioaerosols were measured at the NanoFlashing™ supply vent. The other three were measured before and after the air handling unit filters were changed to NanoFlashing™. The Validation page says these were independently measured with MicronView's 405 nm Bio-fluorescent Air Monitoring System. Each is one building over one period, and it is not a result for another building. The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The Terms of Use state: “A test of C-POLAR material, a component, or a prototype does not establish the performance of a finished product that incorporates it. Construction, processing, storage, wear, cleaning, other components, and actual use may change the result.” They also state: “Use evidence, specifications, instructions, and warnings specific to the actual finished product and use.” Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. ISO 18184 measures virus recovered from treated textile against an untreated control; it is a contact test on the medium, not an airborne or in-use result. 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 label for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter states: “Results in a building depend on the system, the airflow, and how well the filter fits its track.” On what leaves the filter, the company's position is that the air leaving the filter has had nothing added to it. The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); NanoFlashing™ Air Filter label; C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, ISO 18184:2014; C-POLAR — Viruses, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/viruses/; C-POLAR — Mold, https://cpolar.tech/contaminants/mold/. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Is a claim of reduced regrowth supported separately from an immediate test result?

The company's claim is that the filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures, and its Validation page contrasts this with conventional filters, on which captured microbes remain viable for weeks to months; it publishes no separate regrowth test.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The company's position, set out in section 2.6 of its Statement of Classification, is bounded. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. Among the conditions tested listed on the Validation page is a used filter for 1 year. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Can physical damage seen in an image establish loss of infectivity by itself?

No. The company does not offer an image as proof that an organism has lost its infectivity.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The paper 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 filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” They also state: “Images and descriptions may show concepts or prototypes. They are not specifications, instructions, validation reports, recommendations, warranties, offers, promises, or commitments.” The Validation page names the organisms tested and the institutions that tested them. An image is not the evidence. Each numbered report the company cites is named in text with its institution and number, not only shown in a picture.

Source: C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/) and C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Does a claimed broad-spectrum effect rely on a biologically justified scope rather than a long target list?

The published claim rests on a physical mechanism and on the organisms named as tested, not on the length of a list.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. The company names the organisms that were tested. On the Validation page the viruses are SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, bovine coronavirus, pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage; the bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis; the fungi are Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans. Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, tested a nonwoven filter medium against influenza A virus (H3N2) under ISO 18184:2014. 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. It reports activity values against Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae under ISO 20743, and against bacteriophage Phi6 under 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. Each result belongs to the organism, the article and the standard named in its report. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” The test article, the organism, the method, the control, the conditions, the contact time, the sample and the endpoint identified in a report are the limits of what that report shows. The charge does not act on organisms only; the filter captures airborne particles mechanically and by electrostatic attraction, and in single-pass laboratory testing it captured pine-needle smoke and ultrafine particles better than the control filter, and smoke is neither a pest nor alive. The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Guangdong Detection Center of Microbiology, Report 2020FM20686R01E, 13 August 2020, ISO 18184:2014; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026, ISO 20743 and ISO 18184; Instituto Valenciano de Microbiología, Report D/26/B0483, 6 August 2026, ISO 13629-2:2014. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.

Are findings for a harmless test surrogate identified as surrogate evidence?

The company names each organism tested, including Phi6 bacteriophage, bovine coronavirus and pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, and it does not label any of them as standing in for another.

The core science is peer-reviewed and published: Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, co-authored by 31 scientists from 18 research institutions. On the Validation page the viruses are SARS-CoV-2, human coronavirus 229E, Coxsackievirus B6, bovine coronavirus, pseudo-type SARS-CoV-2, influenza A H3N2 and Phi6 bacteriophage; the bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis; the fungi are Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus brasiliensis, Aspergillus niger and Candida albicans. 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. Its virus result is against bacteriophage Phi6 under ISO 18184. A published paper, Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947, compared a C-POLAR treated filter with an untreated spunlace nonwoven filter against an aerosolised pseudotyped virus. The filter is intended to destroy the viruses, bacteria and fungal spores it captures. It destroys them on direct contact with the positive electric charge, by physical means, and only while the organism is captured by the positive electric charge. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.” The test article, the organism, the method, the control, the conditions, the contact time, the sample and the endpoint identified in a report are the limits of what that report shows. The paper 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.

Source: C-POLAR — Validation (https://cpolar.tech/validation/) and C-POLAR — Terms of Use (https://cpolar.tech/terms/); Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, NF Technical Products Inc.; Gong, Or, Sze et al., Microbiology Spectrum 12(9), e0409723, American Society for Microbiology, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.04097-23; Textile Testing Institute – Brno (TZÚ), Test Report AZL 26/0757-02, 3 July 2026, ISO 20743 and ISO 18184; Scientific Reports (2023) 13:13947. A copy may be made available on our review of the request.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.