| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| The test that decides | Does evidence exist for this exact statement, under the conditions the listing states |
| Chlorine data that exists | 99.5% free chlorine removal at start of flow in SGS testing to GB/T 5750.11-2023, on the ACF media as a component |
| Durability data | Over 96.8% initial removal and 90.6% after 5 tons of continuous flow, from separate third party testing |
| Water saving data | Roughly 50 to 70 percent lower flow than comparable non water saving heads, measured at 0.3MPa |
| Production evidence | 100% water test of roughly 10 to 15 seconds per unit before packing; 0.5MPa leak point checks in selected processes |
| Never claim | Health, skin, hair or scalp outcomes, antibacterial action, negative ions, far infrared, and any increase in water pressure |
| Certification wording | Do not write certified or approved unless you hold the certificate, since an approval belongs to its applicant |
| Who owns the claim | The party placing the product on the market owns every claim and its substantiation; reports are shared per project |
The Only Test That Matters
Before publishing any sentence about a shower head, ask one question: does evidence exist for this exact statement, at the level the statement is pitched, under the conditions the listing states. Most problem claims fail on the middle clause. A test report describes a medium in a laboratory at the start of flow; the listing describes a finished product in a customer's bathroom over the life of a cartridge. Those are different objects, and moving a number between them without changing the wording is how a defensible fact becomes an indefensible claim.
The second failure mode is the missing condition. A percentage without a baseline, a flow figure without a pressure, a service interval without a throughput assumption: each of these reads as a stronger claim than the evidence supports, and each is fixed by adding six words rather than by removing the claim. Conditions are not legal decoration. They are what makes the sentence true.
The third is category drift. A shower head sold as a shower head is a plumbing fitting. The same shower head sold for a dermatological, therapeutic or disinfecting outcome invites review under medical device, cosmetic or health product rules in several markets, and the party who wrote the sentence is the party who answers for it. ZHONGHE supplies factual product and test data and does not make or substantiate health claims.
Claims You Can Support, and How to Word Them
Everything in this table has evidence behind it. The third column is the wording that survives review, and it is usually only slightly longer than the version that does not.
| Claim | Evidence that exists | Wording that survives review |
|---|---|---|
| Chlorine reduction | SGS testing of the ACF media to GB/T 5750.11-2023 showed 99.5% free chlorine removal at start of flow | Activated carbon fiber cartridge for free chlorine reduction. Third party testing of the media showed 99.5% removal at start of flow under GB/T 5750.11-2023 conditions. Performance varies with water quality and use. |
| Reduction over a cartridge life | Separate third party testing showed over 96.8% initial removal and 90.6% after 5 tons of continuous flow | Quote both figures with the throughput they refer to, or quote neither of them |
| Water saving | Bench comparison at 0.3MPa against non water saving reference heads showed roughly 50 to 70 percent lower flow | Up to a stated percentage less water than a comparable non water saving head, measured at 0.3MPa (3 bar, about 43.5 psi) |
| Flow rate | A measured figure at a stated pressure | A flow figure always with its pressure, never as a bare number on the pack |
| Materials | ABS body, PC transparent handle, plated or painted finishes, silicone nozzle cones | Name the material; do not convert it into a durability or safety promise |
| Hygiene testing on media | Calcium sulfite media passed drinking water grade hygiene testing across 16 assessed items, with RoHS non detect | Describe it as testing on the medium, not as a certification of the finished head |
| Mineral media | Metasilicate media has a test reference of pH 8.1 and REACH SVHC screening | Conditions water toward mildly alkaline is describable; benefits from that are not |
| Fitment | G1/2 (BSPP, ISO 228), head side outside diameter about 27 mm, with S, G, K and M adapters | State what fits and what needs an adapter, with the caveat that the actual fitting decides |
| Production testing | 100% water test of roughly 10 to 15 seconds per unit; 0.5MPa leak point checks in selected processes | Every unit is water tested before packing is true; guaranteed never to leak is not |
Claims to Avoid
The rows below are not a house style preference. Each one either lacks evidence entirely, changes the product's regulatory class, or claims something the physics does not support. The right hand column is what to write instead, and in most cases it is the more persuasive sentence anyway, because it says something specific.
| Claim to avoid | Why | What to say instead |
|---|---|---|
| Skin, hair, scalp, eczema or any health outcome | Moves a plumbing fitting toward medical device, cosmetic or health product regulation in several markets, and carries a substantiation burden nobody can meet | Describe the medium and what it acts on |
| Negative ions, far infrared, energy | Not tested by the factory and not supported on packaging | Mineral bead cartridge, and water conditioning |
| Antibacterial, purifies water, safe to drink | A drinking water treatment claim on a shower product, and a different regulatory class | Free chlorine reduction, with its test conditions attached |
| Increases water pressure | A shower head cannot add pressure to a supply | A concentrated spray raises exit velocity at a given flow, or simply describe the boost mode |
| NSF certified, WRAS approved, WaterMark certified | An approval is granted for a product to an applicant, so using the wording without holding it is a false statement | Name the standard the material was tested against, where that is accurate |
| Removes 99.5% of chlorine | Strips the conditions off a component test and applies the result to a finished product across a cartridge life | Quote the medium, the standard, the condition and the variability |
| Lifetime, permanent, never clogs | Absolute claims with no test behind them | A service interval with the condition it assumes |
| Eco friendly, chemical free, non toxic | Vague environmental and safety wording that several markets now police specifically | The measurable thing: flow at a pressure, the material, the restricted substance screening |
Per Market Notes
This table names the regime, not the requirement. Rules and enforcement priorities move, so confirm the current position for your market and channel with your own counsel or compliance adviser before publishing, and treat the platform's own policy as a separate document from the law.
| Market or channel | What governs the claim | Practical note |
|---|---|---|
| United States | FTC substantiation standards for advertising claims, plus state consumer protection law | A claim needs a reasonable basis held before publication, not assembled after a challenge |
| United States, California | Proposition 65 warning duty | A warning obligation on the party placing the product on the market, and not a certificate |
| European Union | Consumer protection law prohibiting misleading commercial practices, with tightening rules on environmental claims | Generic green wording is a current enforcement focus; confirm the position with local counsel |
| United Kingdom | Consumer protection law and the advertising codes | Comparative and superlative claims need evidence held before publication |
| Australia | Australian Consumer Law, alongside WELS registration for the flow label | A star rating cannot appear without the registration behind it |
| Japan | 景品表示法, the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations | 節水 percentages must state the comparison; 優良誤認 covers representations that overstate quality |
| Amazon and other marketplaces | Platform policy restricting health, medical and disinfection claims, independently of the law | A legally compliant listing can still be suppressed by policy, so check category rules before writing copy |
Pre Publish Checklist
Run this before the listing goes live, and again after any translation. A claim file per SKU turns a challenge into a folder lookup instead of a scramble.
- For every claim, write down the evidence that supports it and where that evidence is held.
- Check whether the evidence describes a component or a finished product, and pitch the claim at the level the evidence sits.
- Attach the condition to every number: test pressure, standard, throughput, comparison baseline.
- Remove health, cosmetic and antibacterial wording everywhere, including image text, bullet points and enhanced content.
- Remove any certification or approval word you do not hold a certificate for, and check the same wording in the manual.
- Check the marketplace category policy separately from the law, because platform rules are stricter in places.
- Localise the hedges as well as the claims, since a translated percentage that loses its condition is a new claim in that language.
- Keep a claims file per SKU with the reports, the bench data and the wording that was approved.