Every product recommendation and piece of editorial content on Clean and Native follows a consistent methodology. This page explains how we test, what our criteria are, and what you should know before acting on anything we write.
Our Testing Approach by Category
Water Filters
Tested against published contaminant reduction claims using a combination of TDS (total dissolved solids) meters, chlorine test strips, and, where possible, third-party laboratory water analysis before and after filtration. We also verify whether products carry NSF/ANSI certifications and assess long-term cost-per-litre.
Air Purifiers
Assessed using a portable particulate matter sensor (PM2.5 and PM10) and VOC detector in a controlled room environment. We test CADR claims, filter replacement costs, noise levels at all settings, and power consumption. We do not recommend units without certified HEPA filtration.
EMF Meters
Compared across three field types: RF (radiofrequency), ELF (extremely low frequency magnetic fields), and electric fields. Cross-validated against known sources of set output (Wi-Fi routers, powerlines at measured distances). Assessed for accuracy, usability, and whether the display is interpretable without advanced knowledge.
Water Testing Kits
Validated against laboratory analysis of the same sample where feasible. We assess which contaminants a kit can actually detect versus what it is marketed as detecting — these are often different. We prioritise kits that include PFAS, heavy metals, and microbiological testing.
Data Sources for Informational Articles
Our informational articles draw on the following primary sources:
- State water utility annual quality reports — published annually by each state’s water authority and required to list all detected contaminants and their concentrations
- ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) — Australia’s primary authority on EMF exposure standards and non-ionising radiation
- DAFF and state EPA reports — for PFAS contamination zones and remediation efforts
- WHO drinking water quality guidelines — used as an international benchmark alongside Australian standards
- Peer-reviewed literature — sourced from PubMed, with preference for systematic reviews and meta-analyses over single studies
- AIHA and ASHRAE guidelines — for indoor air quality standards and ventilation benchmarks
Where we cite a specific study or data point, we link to the source or clearly identify it by author, journal, and year.
Editorial Principles
What We Commit To
We don’t recommend what we haven’t evaluated. Every product that appears with a specific recommendation has been either tested by Jayce personally or evaluated against verified third-party testing data and certification records.
We distinguish evidence quality. “There is one small observational study suggesting X” is not the same as “there is strong evidence that X.” We are explicit about the strength of evidence behind every claim.
Affiliate relationships don’t influence editorial. We may earn commissions on some recommended products. Our test results and editorial conclusions are determined before we consider affiliate availability, not after.
We update when we’re wrong. Testing is not infallible. If a product we recommended turns out to underperform, or if new evidence changes our assessment, we update the article and note that a correction was made.
We are Australia-specific. Contaminant levels, regulatory standards, and available products differ significantly between countries. We do not extrapolate American or European data to an Australian context without clearly noting the limitation.
What We Don’t Do
- Accept payment for positive reviews or editorial coverage
- Make medical claims or suggest that any product treats, cures, or prevents disease
- Recommend products solely because of affiliate commission rates
- Publish sensationalised health claims without evidentiary support
- Copy contaminant data from secondary sources without verifying against the original utility or agency report
Limitations
We are a small, independent site — not a laboratory. Our product testing is real but not conducted under controlled laboratory conditions in every case. Where our assessment differs from a manufacturer’s independent lab results, we note both and explain the discrepancy.
We are not scientists. We are rigorous generalists who engage with primary literature and expert sources. We try hard to get things right, and we are transparent when we are uncertain.
If you identify an error in our methodology or content, please email hello@cleanandnative.com. We take corrections seriously.