Editorial standards

01Sourcing

Every factual claim on the site is anchored to a primary source. We organize source authority into three tiers:

• Tier 1 — regulatory + government scientific bodies. EPA (UCMR 5 occurrence data, MCL rulemaking, drinking-water regulations), ATSDR (PFAS Toxicological Profile), NIH National Toxicology Program, CDC, and the EU's EFSA. All data claims about contamination levels, regulatory limits, and population exposure derive from this tier.
• Tier 2 — peer-reviewed scientific literature. Health-effect claims are anchored to peer-reviewed studies, with preference for systematic reviews and large epidemiological cohorts (e.g. the C8 Health Project). Single-study findings are framed as "preliminary" or "under investigation"; established findings are framed as "linked" or "associated."
• Tier 3 — independent technical standards bodies. NSF International (NSF/ANSI 53, NSF/ANSI 58, NSF P473) for filter certification claims.

Advocacy-group reports (EWG, NRDC, etc.) are useful for framing context but are not used as factual sources for numeric claims on this site. We cite them only when explicitly noting them as advocacy-derived.

02Review cadence

We commit publicly to quarterly review of every editorial page. Each blog post, the FAQ, the methodology page, and the per-compound information on the PFAS Guide all carry a "Last reviewed" date in the byline reflecting that cycle.

A quarterly review checks four things:

1. Are all numeric claims still consistent with the latest EPA data?
2. Has the regulatory status of any claim changed (e.g. new MCLs, new EPA reconsiderations, new IARC classifications)?
3. Have new peer-reviewed findings shifted what we previously described as "preliminary"?
4. Are external links still live and resolving to the correct primary source?

Pages that need substantive updates get a fresh dated revision; pages that don't get a fresh "Last reviewed" stamp confirming the review happened and the content is current.

03What we don't claim

CheckPFAS is not a medical resource. Nothing here constitutes diagnosis, prescription, or treatment advice. Our editorial lead does not hold a medical, toxicology, or public-health credential.

We describe what the EPA's data shows; what peer-reviewed research has linked PFAS exposure to; and what filter technologies are certified to remove PFAS. We do not tell readers whether their specific exposure level requires clinical attention — that is a conversation for them and their physician, ideally referencing ATSDR's PFAS clinical guidance.

We are also not a regulatory authority. When we describe an EPA limit or rule, we are reporting the published rule — not endorsing, challenging, or interpreting it. Disputes about the science behind specific MCL values belong with the EPA and the academic literature, not on a consumer-facing data site.

04Conflicts of interest

CheckPFAS earns affiliate commissions through the Amazon Associates program and similar public retailer affiliate programs. When a reader clicks a filter recommendation link and makes a purchase, we earn a small percentage at no extra cost to them.

This is our only revenue source. We do not accept:

• Sponsored content
• Paid placements in product rankings
• Manufacturer-funded reviews
• Advertising relationships outside standard public affiliate programs
• Press junkets, free product samples, or any in-kind compensation

Product rankings on /reviews/ are scored on a public rubric (PFAS removal, NSF certification, 5-year cost, installation effort) — not on commission rate. Products with no affiliate link receive the same evaluation as those that earn us a commission. For full disclosure details, see our Affiliate Disclosure.

05Corrections

We correct factual errors as quickly as possible. If you believe a claim on CheckPFAS is inaccurate, email [email protected] with the page URL and the specific claim. We review every correction request against the EPA source data and respond within 5 business days.

Confirmed corrections receive a dated correction line at the bottom of the affected page, in the format:

Correction · May 22, 2026 · [what was wrong] · [what it now says] · [source]

Substantive corrections to a previously published article also bump the article's Last reviewed date.

06Independence

CheckPFAS is operated by Jovian Creative AS, a private company registered in Norway (Org. nr. 930 966 495). We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by the US Environmental Protection Agency, any US state agency, any US public water utility, or any manufacturer of water treatment equipment.

Being based outside the United States gives us a specific kind of independence: no proximity to the US chemicals industry, no relationships with US water utilities, no political stake in how the data is read, and GDPR as a baseline data-handling regime.

More on the operator and funding model: About CheckPFAS.