Why we publish our methodology

Affiliate product review sites occupy an awkward epistemic position: they recommend products commercially while claiming editorial independence. The only credible way to resolve this tension is radical transparency about how recommendations are made. This page documents exactly what we do, what we measure, what equipment we use, and how our affiliate relationships are structured relative to our editorial process.

Independent testing methodology pages are standard practice in credible product testing journalism — RTINGS.com publishes detailed calibration and measurement protocols for every product category; Consumer Reports and CHOICE publish methodology overviews. We follow this model. Our methodology is not equivalent to NATA-accredited laboratory testing, but it is standardised, reproducible, and conducted without commercial bias in the selection of results.

General principles

• Independent purchase or voluntary loan only. Products are either purchased independently or accepted on a voluntary loan basis. Loaned products are disclosed in the relevant article. Manufacturers do not receive review copies in advance of publication and cannot request removal of negative findings.
• Affiliate relationships do not determine rankings. Affiliate commission rates vary by product and retailer. A product recommended as #1 does not earn more commission than the #2 recommendation — rankings are based on testing performance, certification status, and value. No product has been ranked higher than its test results support because of commission rate.
• Negative results are published. Products that underperform in testing are noted. Our reviews include “what we tested and rejected” sections because omitting poor performers creates a misleading picture. See our best EMF meter Australia guide for an example of this approach.
• Certification is a necessary but not sufficient condition. NSF, WaterMark, ARPANSA, and CE certifications are required baseline criteria — but certification alone does not determine ranking. Real-world performance in the AU residential environment is the primary determinant.

EMF testing methodology

Equipment

Test environment

Measurements are conducted in a coastal Queensland residential home (suburb: Palm Beach, Gold Coast). The property is a single-storey dwelling on a 600m² block with:

• Ausgrid-compatible smart meter on the exterior western wall (Energex network — standard SEQ distribution)
• NBN FTTN connection with 2.4 GHz / 5 GHz dual-band WiFi router
• Standard 230V / 50Hz Australian residential wiring
• Neighbourhood RF environment: suburban residential, no co-located telecommunications towers within 200m

Baseline ambient readings are taken before every test session: typically 0.1–0.3 mG AC magnetic at 1m from walls (from distribution wiring), 0.1–0.8 V/m AC electric, and 0.01–0.05 mW/m² RF (ambient suburban WiFi and cellular background).

Measurement protocol

AC magnetic field (EMF meters, appliances, smart meters): Three measurements taken at each distance (0.3m, 1m, 2m) in three axis orientations. The TF2 in weighted sum mode is used for final figures. Measurements taken with the device powered on at normal operating conditions (smart meter during active demand interval; air purifier at rated operating speed). Background is subtracted where possible but noted if it represents more than 10% of the measured value.

RF/microwave (WiFi routers, smart meters, 5G devices): Peak Hold mode on TF2 for 60 seconds at each test position. Cross-validated with Safe and Sound Pro II for readings above 0.1 mW/m². Proximity measurements at 0.1m, 0.3m, 1m, and 2m documented.

Shielding products: Before-and-after measurements taken with identical positioning and identical source distance. Shielding effectiveness calculated as: dB = 10 × log10(P_before / P_after) for RF power density; and as percentage reduction for AC magnetic field.

What we report

We report: peak measured value (not average), distance from source, ambient background at time of test, and which instrument was used. We do not make specific health claims about measured levels — ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) reference levels are cited as the recognised Australian framework, alongside ICNIRP guidelines where relevant. Measurements are reported descriptively and compared to published reference values, not used to make individual health recommendations.

Water filter testing methodology

Equipment

Test water source

Palm Beach (Gold Coast / SEQ) tap water. Urban Utilities distribution, treated at Mount Crosby WTP by Seqwater. Key characteristics:

• TDS: typically 60–75 mg/L (measured; consistent with Brisbane metro range)
• Disinfection: chloramine (network-wide in SEQ)
• Fluoride: 0.6–0.8 mg/L (target range per Urban Utilities)
• Hardness: approximately 80 mg/L as CaCO₃ (moderately hard)
• pH: approximately 7.8

RO and membrane filter protocol

Systems are installed and run for a minimum conditioning period (typically 48–72 hours / 20+ litres flushed) before testing begins, per manufacturer instructions. TDS measurements taken:

1. Tap water input (three separate readings, averaged)
2. Filter output immediately after conditioning
3. Filter output after 30 days of regular use

Rejection rate calculated as: (TDS_in — TDS_out) / TDS_in × 100%. Results at 30 days are used as the “operational” figure in reviews, not the initial conditioning reading.

Carbon block and pitcher filter protocol

For filters that do not significantly reduce TDS (carbon block, GAC, ceramic), assessment focuses on:

• Chloramine taste/odour reduction (blinded comparative tasting)
• Flow rate at rated pressure
• Certification status verification (NSF 42, 53, 401 as claimed)
• Filter life per manufacturer claim vs observed performance

Certification cross-reference

NSF International certification claims are verified against the NSF product and service listings database (nsf.org/certified-products) before publication. WaterMark certifications are verified against the WaterMark licence database (watermark.register.smartregulation.gov.au). Certifications that cannot be verified in official databases are not cited as certified in our reviews.

Air purifier testing methodology

Equipment

What we test and what we reference

We are transparent about the limits of our testing. We do not have access to AHAM CADR testing apparatus or particle counters for PM2.5 and PM0.3 testing at the precision required to verify manufacturer CADR claims. For CADR figures, we rely on:

• AHAM Verifide certification (the gold standard — independent lab verified; searchable at ahamdir.com)
• RTINGS.com particle testing where AHAM data is unavailable
• Manufacturer claimed figures only as a last resort, clearly labelled as unverified

Noise, EMF, filter replacement cost, and real-world operational characteristics (auto mode sensitivity, app quality, filter access ease) are tested directly on the physical unit.

HEPA filter verification

“True HEPA” (H13 or H14 per EN1822, removing ≥99.97% of 0.3 micron particles) is differentiated from “HEPA-type” or “HEPA-like” marketing language in all reviews. Only units with independently verified true HEPA filtration are described as HEPA-certified. Filter specifications are cross-checked against the manufacturer’s technical documentation, not marketing copy.

Our independence policy

Affiliate commissions: Clean and Native earns affiliate commission from Amazon AU, SaferEMF.com.au, and select other retailers when purchases are made through links on this site. Commission rates range from 3–8% and do not vary based on product ranking. Our #1 recommendation earns the same percentage commission as our #5 recommendation.

Manufacturer samples: Occasionally manufacturers offer free product samples for review. When accepted, this is disclosed in the relevant article with a note that the unit was provided at no cost. Manufacturers are not informed of review content before publication and have no ability to request changes to findings.

Advertiser relationships: Clean and Native does not accept display advertising, sponsored content, or paid placements. The only commercial relationship with product companies is affiliate commission through standard retailer affiliate programs (no separate paid partnerships).

Corrections policy: If factual errors are identified in our content — whether by readers, manufacturers, or our own review — we correct them promptly and note the correction in the article. Recommendations that are superseded by newer products or testing are updated, not left to mislead.

Our content is written and tested by real people

Every article, review, and guide on Clean and Native is written by a human being who has physically tested the products, measured the claims, and spent real time in the subject matter — not generated by AI, assembled by a content agency, or produced from aggregated web sources.

I’m Jayce Love — a former Royal Australian Navy Clearance Diver, based in Palm Beach QLD. I’m the person holding the TriField TF2, running the TDS meter over filtered and unfiltered tap water, and photographing actual readings in my own home. When an article on this site cites 3 ppm TDS post-RO filtration, that’s a real measurement from my kitchen. When it cites 3.058 mW/m² at 1m from a home Wi-Fi router, that’s my Palm Beach router — tested, photographed, and documented with the specific equipment listed above.

This matters in water, air, and EMF content because incorrect advice has real consequences — not just wasted money. AI tools can produce plausible-sounding filter recommendations. They cannot notice that a specific cartridge failed to reduce chloramine taste at 30 days, or that a certification listed on a product box doesn’t appear in the NSF verified database. Those findings come from testing, not content generation. AI tools are used on this site for research assistance only — they do not write, edit, or structurally determine the articles you read.

What we don’t test (and why it matters)

We do not have laboratory-grade equipment for:

• Chemical contaminant analysis (PFAS, lead, fluoride levels in filter output) — we rely on NSF/WaterMark certification data for these claims
• Particle counting at PM0.3 for air purifier CADR verification — we use AHAM Verifide and RTINGS data
• Calibrated anechoic chamber noise measurements — our decibel figures are indicative, not audiometric-grade

We are explicit about this in our reviews. Where a claim depends on certified laboratory data rather than our own measurement, we say so and provide the certification source. This is the honest approach — and it is why certification status is weighted so heavily in our rankings.

Contact and methodology questions

If you have questions about our testing methodology, want to flag an error, or are a researcher seeking more detail on a specific measurement, contact us at hello@cleanandnative.com.au. We respond to all methodological queries.