Corrections

Why this page exists

Certification status genuinely changes in this category. Manufacturers revise performance data sheets, listings lapse, products get discontinued, and regulatory limits move. Brita revised a performance data sheet in January 2026, and the revision changed the correct answer to a question thousands of people search every month.

A site that makes dated, correctable claims in a field where the facts move is more trustworthy than one making undated, permanent-sounding ones — but only if there is somewhere the changes actually get recorded. That is this page. Of the ten publications surveyed while planning this site, one published a corrections page. It is the cheapest honesty available in the category and almost nobody spends it.

The policy

• What we correct. Any factual error: a wrong certification status, a misstated standard number, a wrong capacity or price-per-gallon figure, a misattributed source, a broken causal claim. Also anything phrased more confidently than the underlying evidence supports — overstatement is an error here, not a style choice.
• How fast. Errors that could lead to a wrong purchase are fixed as soon as they are confirmed. Everything else is fixed on the next content pass.
• How it is recorded. Substantive corrections are logged below with the date, the page, what the page previously said, and what it says now. The page's own last-updated date changes at the same time.
• What is not logged. Typographical fixes, broken-link repairs, and routine price-data refreshes. Logging those would bury the corrections that matter.
• Nothing is deleted. Entries are appended. A correction log that gets tidied up is not a correction log.

The log

• 2026-09-26 — /pitchers/reviews/clearly-filtered-pitcher. Previously: That Clearly Filtered is not NSF certified at all — the FAQ answered the question with a flat no, and the comparison page said the same. Now: NSF's own listing records the Clearly Filtered Filtered Water Pitcher under NSF/ANSI 42 for chlorine and taste and odor reduction at 100 gallons, and the company states it holds NSF/ANSI 42 and 372 certifications with 53 and 401 in progress. The wider 386-contaminant claim list remains laboratory test data rather than a certification. Corrected on the review, on /compare/clearly-filtered-vs-brita, in the pitcher comparison table and on the product card.
• 2026-09-22 — /under-sink/reviews/aquasana-aq-5300. Previously: That the Aquasana Claryum 3-Stage is certified for up to 99% of 65 contaminants, with a cartridge set rated at 800 gallons. Now: Aquasana's current published figures are 78 contaminants, WQA tested and certified to NSF/ANSI 42, 53 (which includes the P473 protocol for PFOA and PFOS) and 401, with the Claryum 3-Stage cartridge set rated at 600 gallons — the 800-gallon figure belongs to the Max Flow version. Corrected on the review, the under-sink roundup and hub, the lead roundup, the fridge-filter page, the under-sink hub FAQ and the product card.
• 2026-09-19 — /pitchers/best-glass-water-filter-pitchers. Previously: That the Waterdrop PT-09W cartridge is listed to NSF/ANSI 42, 53 and 372 with a PFOA/PFOS claim, without separating what is certified from what is not. Now: Waterdrop's own listing certifies the cartridge against NSF/ANSI 42 for chlorine, taste and odor, against 53 for mercury, and to 372 for materials; copper, cadmium and PFOA/PFOS come from third-party laboratory testing. The comparison table, the pick note, the prose and the FAQ now say which is which, and the product card was updated to match.
• 2026-09-18 — /compare/brita-vs-pur. Previously: That neither Brita nor PUR was certified for PFAS, and that ZeroWater was the certified alternative to both. Now: PUR's July 2026 performance data sheet lists total PFAS at 99.75% for the PLUS pitcher filter (PPF951K) and states the systems are certified by IAPMO R&T to NSF/ANSI 42, 53 and 401. The comparison table, the skip box and the FAQ now say so; the Brita Elite remains uncertified for PFOA and PFOS.
• 2026-09-18 — /pitchers/best-water-filter-pitchers. Previously: The comparison table showed the PUR PLUS as "Not claimed" for PFOA/PFOS, with evidence limited to NSF/ANSI 53 for lead. Now: Certified, total PFAS 99.75%, per PUR's July 2026 data sheet, with IAPMO R&T named as the certifying body. The PUR product card was updated to match.
• 2026-09-18 — /pitchers/best-water-filter-dispensers. Previously: That the PUR PLUS 30-cup dispenser's cartridge carried no PFOA or PFOS claim, and that ZeroWater's was the only cartridge in the group certified for PFAS. Now: The PUR PLUS cartridge carries a certified total PFAS figure of 99.75% on PUR's July 2026 sheet. ZeroWater is described as certified for PFOA and PFOS at 99%, not as the only option.
• 2026-09-18 — /contaminants/pfas/best-pfas-water-filters. Previously: That one pitcher filter was certified against NSF/ANSI 53 for PFAS; the PUR PLUS filter was absent from the status table. Now: Two pitcher cartridges are certified: ZeroWater's 5-stage and the PUR PLUS (PPF951K). The table now carries a PUR row with its figure and source.
• 2026-09-18 — /under-sink/best-faucet-water-filters. Previously: Figures from an earlier PUR faucet data sheet: mercury above 96.7%, lead 98.70% at pH 8.5, TTHM 98.3%, a twelve-substance NSF/ANSI 401 table, no microplastics figure, no published service flow, and no PFOA or PFOS claim on any of the three mounts. Now: PUR's October 2025 sheet lists mercury at 78.59% and 81.58%, lead at 99.60% at pH 8.5, total PFAS at 99.92%, microplastics at 99.65%, a fifteen-row NSF/ANSI 401 table and a rated service flow of 0.52 gpm. That sheet still says tested according to rather than certified by, and the page preserves the distinction. The PFM400H product card was updated to match.
• 2026-09-18 — /brands/zerowater/does-zerowater-remove-lead. Previously: That ZeroWater was the only certified pitcher covering both lead and PFAS. Now: ZeroWater and the PUR PLUS filter are the two certified pitcher cartridges covering both, per PUR's July 2026 data sheet.

How to report something

Email info@clearcarafe.com. The most useful reports include the page URL, the sentence that is wrong, and — where you have one — the source that shows it. A link to a certifier's listing or a manufacturer data sheet turns a report into a same-day fix.

You do not need to be polite about it, and you do not need to be certain. A reader telling us a claim looks stale costs us ten minutes to check. A reader buying the wrong system because we did not check costs considerably more. The standards those claims are held to are set out in the editorial policy and the methodology.