Filters certified for PFAS — every model NSF lists, and why three claims are not one

By Andrew Bates, FounderPublished 2026-09-10Updated 2026-09-11

NSF lists PFAS reduction under NSF/ANSI 53 as three separate claims, and they do not travel together. On 2026-09-10 its search returned 72 distinct model designations from 14 companies holding at least one: 25 hold all three, 25 hold PFOA and PFOS but not total PFAS, and 22 hold total PFAS but neither named compound.

Three claims, and they do not travel together

The single most consequential fact about PFAS certification is that it is not one thing.

NSF/ANSI 53 lists PFOA reduction, PFOS reduction and total PFAS reduction as three separate selectable claims. A product certified for one is not certified for the others, and most of the listed market holds a partial set.

Merging all three listings on 2026-09-10 gives 72 distinct model designations across 14 companies:

What the model holds	Models
All three claims	25
PFOA and PFOS, but not total PFAS	25
Total PFAS, but neither named compound	22

Only about a third of the listed set answers every version of the question.

→ Which claims exist at all, and how populated each is

Where the claim lives, and where it does not

No PFAS claim is selectable under NSF/ANSI 58, the reverse osmosis standard. All three sit under NSF/ANSI 53.

That matters because EPA advises looking for certification under “NSF/ANSI 53 or NSF/ANSI 58” for PFAS reduction. Both statements are current on their own pages. The practical reading: a reverse osmosis system carries a PFAS claim only where it also holds NSF/ANSI 53 certification listing one, so check for the claim rather than for the standard number.

EPA has separately found that granular activated carbon, ion exchange and reverse osmosis point-of-use systems it studied can greatly reduce PFAS levels. The technology works. The certification is recorded elsewhere.

The caveat that bounds everything below

EPA, April 2024: current certification standards for PFAS filters do not yet indicate that a filter will remove PFAS down to the levels in its own limits.

So a listed claim proves a model was tested against that claim’s protocol. It does not prove your water will come out under EPA’s figure. Nothing on this page overrides that.

→ PFAS, and what certification does not yet prove

The decision framework

1. Which claim do you actually need?

If your concern is PFOA and PFOS specifically — the two compounds most reporting names — 50 of the 72 models hold both: the 25 holding all three plus the 25 holding that pair alone.

If your concern is PFAS as a class, you need the total PFAS claim, held by 47 models — the 25 holding all three plus the 22 holding it alone.

If you want the full set, 25 models hold all three.

2. Is a listed claim present on that exact model?

Claims vary by product, and NSF lists per model designation. Some listings also carry the footnote “conforms to the material requirements only”, which places a product under a standard with no reduction claim at all.

→ How to read an NSF listing, footnotes included

3. Where will it be installed?

Every category in this claim set is point-of-use:

Category	Models
Plumbed-in to separate tap	33
Counter-top connected to sink faucet	19
Plumbed-in	14
Refrigerator filter	5
Pour-through	1

No point-of-entry product holds a PFAS claim in this listing. Whole-house PFAS treatment exists as a technology; what does not appear is a whole-house product certified for it here. If a supplier offers you one, ask which body certified it and for which claim.

→ Point-of-use or whole-house, by exposure route

4. How concentrated is the listed set?

More than it looks. Two Amway entities account for 30 of the 72 model designations, and every one of the 25 models holding all three claims is an eSpring variant from those two entities.

That is a fact about who has certified, not about who performs. It does mean a buyer wanting all three claims is choosing from one product family in this listing, which is worth knowing before assuming the market is wide.

Applying the framework: the listed set

Here is the framework applied to NSF’s listing, grouped by what each model holds. This is not a ranking and carries no recommendation — it is the certified population, which is the population any recommendation would have to come from.

Holding all three claims — 25 models, one family

Access Business Group International LLC (DBA Amway) and Amway (China): eSpring 122940 and 122941 series, including regional variants (C, CA, CH, HK, IN, J, K, M, SG, T, TH, VN), plus 128212XY and WTI1167X. Counter-top connected to sink faucet, and plumbed-in to separate tap.

Holding total PFAS only — 22 models, four companies

Brio Water Technology — FUS100A and FUS100F series, RPFFUS100SS series (12 models), plumbed-in and plumbed-in to separate tap
Microfilter Co., Ltd. — FP-10, FP-10S, FP-15, FP-15S, FP-17, FP-17S, FP-21, FP-21S (8 models), plumbed-in
LARQ Inc. — LARQ Advanced Under Sink Filter, plumbed-in
Mavea LLC — Purity C 1000 AC, plumbed-in

Holding PFOA and PFOS only — 25 models, ten companies

Multipure (4), Samsung Electronics (4), Whirlpool (4), Access Business Group (3), Tupperware Brands (3), Amway China (2), Watpure International (2), 4Patriots (1), Camelot International Health Organization (1), Carbon Block Technology (1).

Notes tied back to the criteria

Whirlpool and Samsung appear only in the PFOA and PFOS group. Their refrigerator and plumbed-in filters are where the five refrigerator-filter entries mostly sit, so a fridge filter holding a PFAS claim is likely to hold the named-compound pair rather than total PFAS.
Brio and Microfilter between them are 20 of the 22 total-PFAS-only models, all plumbed-in. A buyer wanting the class claim without the Amway family is choosing largely between those two.
Samsung’s model strings contain wildcards in NSF’s listing, meaning a family of part numbers rather than one unit. Match your exact model against the pattern rather than assuming.
The Total PFAS claim has a published definition. NSF’s listing footnotes state it covers PFHpA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFBS and PFDA — seven compounds. HFPO-DA, which EPA calls GenX, is not among them.
PFOA and PFOS claims were not all evaluated against the same standard. Footnotes record some assessed to the 2021 version of NSF/ANSI 53 and some to the 2022 version.

The decision path

Your situation	What decides it	Where that lands you
Report names PFOA or PFOS	The named-compound claims	50 models (25 + 25) hold both
Concerned about PFAS generally	Total PFAS claim	47 models (25 + 22); 22 hold only this
Want every version covered	All three claims	25 models, one product family
Want whole-house coverage	No such listing exists here	Ask which body certified it
Already own a certified RO system	58 carries no PFAS claim	Check whether it also holds 53
Report shows no PFAS figure	Monitoring runs to 2027	Absence may be an absent test
Want proof of EPA-limit compliance	EPA says certification does not show it	No product on this page proves it

Choose a model holding total PFAS if

Your concern is the class rather than two named compounds.
You accept that 22 of the 47 holding it hold neither PFOA nor PFOS as a separate claim, so ask for the full claim list rather than the headline.

Choose a model holding all three if

You want the named compounds and the class claim on one unit, and you are comfortable that the listed set is a single product family.

Choose to wait if

Your utility has not yet reported PFAS figures. Monitoring runs to 2027 and reduction to 2029, so you may be buying against a number that does not exist yet.
Your reason for buying is confidence that you will meet EPA’s limits. Certification does not yet demonstrate that.

Mistakes that cost the most money

Reading “PFAS certified” as one claim. It is three, and half the listed market holds a partial set.

Looking for the claim under NSF/ANSI 58. It is not there. Under 58 only TDS reduction is required, and PFAS is not a selectable claim at all.

Buying whole-house for PFAS. No point-of-entry product holds the claim in this listing.

Assuming a refrigerator filter covers it. Five of the 72 are refrigerator filters. The rest of the category holds no PFAS claim.

Treating a listing as proof of meeting EPA’s limits. EPA has said plainly that current certification does not yet indicate that.

Ignoring the cartridge schedule. EPA states carbon filters have a specified shelf life and should be replaced on schedule. A claim describes a cartridge inside its rated life.

Three situations, and what changes

Your utility has reported a PFAS figure above the limit. The class claim is the one to want, and the decision narrows to the 47 models holding total PFAS. Read your report first, because which compounds were detected may make the named claims sufficient.

Your report says nothing about PFAS. That may mean none was found or that monitoring has not happened, since systems have until 2027. Buying now is buying against an unknown; asking the utility whether it has sampled costs nothing.

You already own a plumbed-in filter. Look the exact model up again and read its full claim list rather than replacing it. Models often hold claims the marketing never mentioned, and the listing is where they are recorded.

The objections worth answering

“Only 72 models? That cannot be right.” It is NSF’s listing on one date, for three specific claims, counting distinct model designations. NSF’s own row counts were 49, 60 and 60. Other certifiers publish separately, and this page does not claim to cover them.

“My brand says it is tested for PFAS.” Tested and certified are different statements, and only one produces a listing. Ask which accredited body, which standard and which of the three claims.

“This looks like an advert for one company.” It is a count of who has certified what, and the concentration is a finding rather than a recommendation. Nothing here says the eSpring family performs better — only that it holds more claims in this listing.

“The figures will be out of date.” They will. NSF dates its listings and asks readers to confirm status at source, which is why the capture date appears beside every figure and the searches take a few minutes to re-run.

Who this is for

Anyone with a PFAS figure in their water report, or a PFAS concern, who wants to know which products can be verified rather than which are advertised.

It is not a recommendation and names no pick. It is the certified population, so that any choice is made from the real set.

What to settle first

Which of the three claims do I need, and does my exact model list it?

Both are answerable in NSF’s listing in a few minutes, and between them they eliminate most of the catalogue.

→ PFAS: the limits, the monitoring timeline, and what certification proves → How to read an NSF listing, footnotes included → Which claims exist at all, and how populated each is

Update: the regulatory position is in flux

On 18 May 2026 EPA proposed rescinding the drinking water regulations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX) and the Hazard Index mixture, while upholding those for PFOA and PFOS. Both are proposals; the April 2024 rule stands until changed.

The rosters below are unaffected. Certification is independent of regulation, and the two compounds NSF names claims for are the two EPA proposes to keep.

→ Unregulated contaminants, and how a limit is set or removed

→ EPA regulates six PFAS; NSF names two — the full crosswalk

The bottom line

Decide which of the three claims you need before comparing anything, because PFOA, PFOS and total PFAS are separate certifications and only 25 of 72 listed models hold all three. Look for the claim under NSF/ANSI 53 — no PFAS claim exists under NSF/ANSI 58, so a reverse osmosis system carries one only if it also holds 53. Expect a point-of-use product, since no point-of-entry model holds a PFAS claim in this listing. Then read EPA's caveat, because certification does not yet demonstrate reduction to its own limits.

Who this is not for

This is what NSF listed on 2026-09-10 and nothing more. WQA and IAPMO certify to the same NSF/ANSI standards and publish separate listings not represented here, so absence from this set is not evidence a product is uncertified. It is not a ranking, names no recommendation, and says nothing about how well any model performs a claim it holds. EPA has stated that current certification standards do not yet indicate a filter will reduce PFAS to its limits, which bounds what any entry here proves.

Questions

How many water filters are certified for PFAS?

NSF's listing search returned 49 rows for total PFAS reduction and 60 each for PFOA and PFOS reduction on 2026-09-10. Merging the three gives 72 distinct model designations from 14 companies. Those are NSF listings only; other accredited bodies publish their own.

Is PFOA certification the same as PFAS certification?

No. NSF/ANSI 53 lists PFOA reduction, PFOS reduction and total PFAS reduction as three separate claims. Of 72 listed models, 25 hold all three, 25 hold PFOA and PFOS without total PFAS, and 22 hold total PFAS without either named compound.

Does reverse osmosis certification cover PFAS?

Not under NSF/ANSI 58. No PFAS claim is selectable under that standard, so a reverse osmosis system carries a PFAS claim only where it also holds NSF/ANSI 53 certification listing one. EPA's advice to look at 53 or 58 sits in tension with that.

Is there a whole-house filter certified for PFAS?

None appears in this listing. Every category holding an NSF/ANSI 53 PFAS claim on 2026-09-10 was point-of-use: plumbed-in to a separate tap, counter-top, plumbed-in, refrigerator filter or pour-through. No point-of-entry product appeared.

Do refrigerator filters remove PFAS?

Five of the 72 listed models are refrigerator filters, so a small number do hold a claim. The overwhelming majority of refrigerator filters hold no PFAS claim, and the only way to know is to look the specific model up in the listing.

Does a certified filter bring PFAS below EPA's limits?

EPA stated in April 2024 that current certification standards for PFAS filters do not yet indicate that a filter will remove PFAS down to its limits. It has separately found that granular activated carbon, ion exchange and reverse osmosis point-of-use systems can greatly reduce PFAS levels.

My filter is not on this list. Is it uncertified?

Not necessarily. This is NSF's listing only, captured on one date. WQA and IAPMO certify to the same NSF/ANSI standards and maintain separate listings, and manufacturers list under legal names that differ from brand names.

Why does my water report say nothing about PFAS?

Public water systems have until 2027 to complete initial PFAS monitoring and to begin informing the public of levels found, and until 2029 to reduce PFAS where monitoring shows the limits are exceeded. A silent report can reflect an absent test.

Sources — 19 claims

EPA — Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) drinking water page, last updated 2026-05-18
On 18 May 2026 EPA announced two proposed rules on PFAS in drinking water. One would uphold the regulation for PFOA and PFOS while allowing systems to request two additional years, to 2031, to comply. The other would rescind the drinking water regulations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX) and the Hazard Index mixture of those three plus PFBS. Both are proposals for public comment; the 2024 regulation for all six remains in force until a final rule changes it. (captured 2026-09-11)
Limits: Proposed, not final. The April 2024 regulation covering six PFAS stands, and a proposal may be withdrawn, altered or finalised. EPA's stated rationale is quoted verbatim in the source passage and is the agency's own characterisation, not a finding of this site. Nothing here changes what a household should do about PFOA or PFOS, which the proposal would keep.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units, NSF/ANSI 53 PFOA, PFOS and Total PFAS reduction-claim searches (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
PFOA, PFOS and total PFAS reduction are selectable in NSF’s listing search under NSF/ANSI 53 only, and no PFAS claim appears under NSF/ANSI 58, although EPA advises looking for certification under NSF/ANSI 53 or NSF/ANSI 58 for PFAS reduction. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: A statement about which claims NSF offers, not about what reverse osmosis does. A system certified to NSF/ANSI 58 may also hold NSF/ANSI 53 certification separately, which is where any PFAS claim it carries would sit. The tension with EPA’s advice is reported, not resolved.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units, NSF/ANSI 53 PFOA, PFOS and Total PFAS reduction-claim searches (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
NSF’s listing search returned 49 rows for total PFAS reduction, 60 for PFOA reduction and 60 for PFOS reduction on 2026-09-10, which resolve to 72 distinct model designations across 14 companies: 25 holding all three claims, 25 holding PFOA and PFOS but not total PFAS, and 22 holding total PFAS but neither named compound. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: NSF counts listed rows and lists some models on several rows, so the row counts and the distinct-model count measure different things and both are reported. Claim membership is taken from which claim query returned a row. NSF listings only; WQA and IAPMO certify to the same standards and publish separate listings.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units, NSF/ANSI 53 PFOA, PFOS and Total PFAS reduction-claim searches (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
Two Amway entities account for 30 of the 72 distinct model designations holding any NSF/ANSI 53 PFAS reduction claim. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: A count of listed model designations under one manufacturer name, not a measure of units sold, availability or performance. Listing several model variants is a normal certification practice.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units, NSF/ANSI 53 PFOA, PFOS and Total PFAS reduction-claim searches (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
Every product category listed against an NSF/ANSI 53 PFAS reduction claim is point-of-use — plumbed-in to separate tap, counter-top connected to sink faucet, plumbed-in, refrigerator filter and pour-through — with no point-of-entry category appearing, and five of the 72 are refrigerator filters. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: The absence of a point-of-entry category in this claim set describes what is certified, not what is technically possible. Whole-house PFAS treatment exists as a technology; what does not appear here is a whole-house product holding this claim in NSF’s listing on the capture date.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units, NSF/ANSI 53 Total PFAS reduction claim listing footnotes (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
NSF defines its Total PFAS reduction claim in the listing footnotes as including seven compounds: perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA). (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: A list of compounds the claim covers, not a reduction level or a treated concentration. HFPO-DA, the compound EPA calls GenX, is not among the seven. EPA has separately stated that current certification standards do not yet indicate a filter will reduce PFAS to its limits.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units, NSF/ANSI 53 Total PFAS reduction claim listing footnotes (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
Of the PFAS compounds EPA regulates, PFOA and PFOS have named NSF claims, and PFHxS, PFNA and PFBS appear inside the Total PFAS bundle; HFPO-DA, which EPA calls GenX, appears in no NSF claim by name or within the bundle. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: Coverage by name in a claim definition, not evidence of performance against EPA limits. A product must still hold the Total PFAS claim for the bundle to apply to it, and 49 models held it on the capture date.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units, NSF/ANSI 53 Total PFAS reduction claim listing footnotes (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
NSF listing footnotes record that PFOA and PFOS reduction claims were evaluated against different versions of NSF/ANSI 53, some to the 2021 version and some to the 2022 version. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: Which version a given model was evaluated against is recorded per listing row. What changed between the two versions is not stated in the listing and is not established here.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units, reduction-claim search (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
NSF/ANSI 53 lists PFOA reduction, PFOS reduction and total PFAS reduction as three separate selectable claims. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: Three separate claims, so a product certified for PFOA is not thereby certified for PFOS or for total PFAS. It does not state what total PFAS covers or to what level.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units, reduction-claim search (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
NSF’s listing search reported these certified product counts on 2026-09-10: chlorine reduction 5,565 and taste and odor reduction 5,504 under NSF/ANSI 42 against chloramine reduction 216; cyst reduction 1,746, lead reduction 1,003, TTHM reduction 317, PFOA reduction 60 and total PFAS reduction 49 under NSF/ANSI 53; TDS reduction 371, fluoride reduction 145, hexavalent chromium reduction 138, pentavalent arsenic to 300 ppb 126 and nitrate/nitrite reduction 84 under NSF/ANSI 58; microplastics reduction 1,099 under NSF/ANSI 401; and free available chlorine reduction 10 under NSF/ANSI 177. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: A dated snapshot of NSF’s own match count per claim, taken one claim at a time on 2026-09-10. NSF counts listed model rows, which include replacement components as separate products, so these are not counts of distinct consumer models. NSF dates its listings and asks readers to confirm status at source, so any figure here can move.
EPA Office of Research and Development — Identifying Drinking Water Filters Certified to Reduce PFAS
EPA states that as of April 2024 the current certification standards for PFAS filters do not yet indicate that a filter will remove PFAS down to the levels EPA has set as a drinking water standard. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: This does not say certified filters fail. It says certification was written against older reduction targets, so a PFAS-certified filter is not evidence of reaching 4.0 ppt. EPA says it is working with standards bodies to update them, so the position may change.
EPA Office of Research and Development — Identifying Drinking Water Filters Certified to Reduce PFAS
EPA advises looking for certification under NSF/ANSI 53 or NSF/ANSI 58 for PFAS reduction, and checking that the product treats the specific type of PFAS being targeted. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: PFAS is a family of thousands of compounds and certification is granted per claim, so a filter certified for PFOA and PFOS establishes nothing about PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA or PFBS.
EPA Office of Research and Development — Identifying Drinking Water Filters Certified to Reduce PFAS
EPA found that the granular activated carbon, ion exchange and reverse osmosis point-of-use systems it studied can greatly reduce PFAS levels, and that filters are only effective if maintained according to the manufacturer instructions. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: "Greatly reduce" is EPA’s wording and is not a numeric removal rate. Read alongside EPA’s statement that certification does not yet demonstrate reduction to the MCL.
NSF — NSF/ANSI 42, 53 and 401: Filtration Systems Standards (page dated 2025-12-16)
Under NSF/ANSI 42 and NSF/ANSI 53, certification claims vary by product; certification to the standard does not mean a product carries every claim available under it. (captured 2026-09-09)
Limits: NSF does not print 'claims vary by product' under NSF/ANSI 401. See certification-nsf-0008 for the 401 position, which rests on weaker source language.
NSF — NSF/ANSI 58: Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment Systems (page dated 2025-12-18)
Under NSF/ANSI 58, TDS reduction is the only required claim. Every other claim, including arsenic, nitrate/nitrite, lead and cyst reduction, is optional. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: This is the sharpest form of "claims vary by product": a system certified to NSF/ANSI 58 is verified for TDS reduction and nothing else unless the individual claim is listed for that model.
NSF Official Listings — Drinking Water Treatment Units (listings current as of Thursday, September 10, 2026, 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time)
NSF Official Listings mark some entries "Conforms to the material requirements only", meaning the product appears under a standard without any contaminant reduction performance claim having been certified. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: The footnote states what was evaluated, not what the product does. It does not say the product performs badly, only that performance was not the basis of this listing. A separate listing for the same model can carry performance claims.
EPA — Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
Public water systems must complete initial PFAS monitoring by 2027 and must inform the public of PFAS levels in their drinking water beginning in 2027. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: Until 2027 a utility may hold no PFAS data at all, so an absent figure in a Consumer Confidence Report is not evidence of absent PFAS.
EPA — Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
Public water systems have until 2029 to reduce PFAS where monitoring shows levels exceed the MCLs, and from 2029 must notify the public of any violation. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: A utility can lawfully deliver water above the PFAS MCLs until 2029 without being in violation. Compliance is determined by running annual averages at the sampling point, so a single high result is not itself a violation.
EPA Office of Water — Home Water Treatment Facts / Filtration Facts (published November 2005)
EPA states that an activated carbon filter by itself is not designed to remove all disease-causing organisms, and that carbon filters have a specified shelf life and should be replaced regularly per the manufacturer instructions. (captured 2026-09-10)
Limits: Concerns activated carbon as a class. Some carbon blocks carry certified cyst reduction claims, which is a model-specific capability rather than a property of carbon.