Have you received a letter from your water system? Click here to learn more
PURCommunity.comContact UsWarranty Registration

Contaminant Comparison Chart

For a complete list of contaminants that PUR filters reduce, please view our Performance Data Sheets here.

 

 

 

PUR & PUR PLUS FAUCET FILTERS
RF3375/RF9999

View Filters

PUR PLUS PITCHER FILTERS
PPF951K

View Filter

PUR BASIC PITCHER FILTERS
PPF900Z

View Filter

 

Vs. Brita*
Lead ✓ ✓
Microplastics ✓ ✓
Mercury ✓ ✓ ✓
Chlorine Taste & Odor ✓ ✓ ✓
DEET ✓
TTHM ✓

PUR’s Filtration Systems Are Certified By NSF And WQA For Their Contamination Reduction. WQA certifications as of 5/27/21 for Faucet filter models RF-3375 and RF-9999.

¹ Certified to reduce 10X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
² Certified to reduce 3X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
³ Certified to reduce 2X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
*Versus best-selling Brita® pitcher filter OB03. Brita® is a trademark of Brita LP.
**Like other leading brands, PUR does not filter microbes. As of 3/1/23 Brita® and ZeroWater® were not certified to filter microbes. Brita® is a trademark of Brita LP. ZeroWater® is a trademark of Zero Technologies, LLC..

 

PUR & PUR PLUS FAUCET FILTERS

 

 

 

PUR & PUR PLUS FAUCET FILTERS
RF3375/RF9999

View Filters
 

Vs. Brita*
Lead ✓
Microplastics ✓
Mercury ✓
Chlorine Taste & Odor ✓
DEET ✓
TTHM ✓

PUR’s Filtration Systems Are Certified By NSF And WQA For Their Contamination Reduction. WQA certifications as of 5/27/21 for Faucet filter models RF-3375 and RF-9999.

¹ Certified to reduce 10X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
² Certified to reduce 3X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
³ Certified to reduce 2X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
*Versus best-selling Brita® pitcher filter OB03. Brita® is a trademark of Brita LP.
**Like other leading brands, PUR does not filter microbes. As of 3/1/23 Brita® and ZeroWater® were not certified to filter microbes. Brita® is a trademark of Brita LP. ZeroWater® is a trademark of Zero Technologies, LLC..

 

PUR PLUS PITCHER FILTERS

 

 

PUR PLUS PITCHER FILTERS
PPF951K

View Filter

 

Vs. Brita*
Lead ✓
Microplastics ✓
Mercury ✓
Chlorine Taste & Odor ✓
DEET
TTHM

PUR’s Filtration Systems Are Certified By NSF And WQA For Their Contamination Reduction. WQA certifications as of 5/27/21 for Faucet filter models RF-3375 and RF-9999.

¹ Certified to reduce 10X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
² Certified to reduce 3X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
³ Certified to reduce 2X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
*Versus best-selling Brita® pitcher filter OB03. Brita® is a trademark of Brita LP.
**Like other leading brands, PUR does not filter microbes. As of 3/1/23 Brita® and ZeroWater® were not certified to filter microbes. Brita® is a trademark of Brita LP. ZeroWater® is a trademark of Zero Technologies, LLC..

 

PUR BASIC PITCHER FILTERS

 

 

 

PUR BASIC PITCHER FILTERS
PPF900Z

View Filter

 

Vs. Brita*
Lead
Microplastics
Mercury ✓
Chlorine Taste & Odor ✓
DEET
TTHM

PUR’s Filtration Systems Are Certified By NSF And WQA For Their Contamination Reduction. WQA certifications as of 5/27/21 for Faucet filter models RF-3375 and RF-9999.

¹ Certified to reduce 10X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
² Certified to reduce 3X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
³ Certified to reduce 2X more chemical and physical substances than Brita’s® leading pitcher filter.
*Versus best-selling Brita® pitcher filter OB03. Brita® is a trademark of Brita LP.
**Like other leading brands, PUR does not filter microbes. As of 3/1/23 Brita® and ZeroWater® were not certified to filter microbes. Brita® is a trademark of Brita LP. ZeroWater® is a trademark of Zero Technologies, LLC..

 

How to Choose Super Absorbent Tampons for Global Sourcing?

Choosing Super Absorbent Tampons for global sourcing requires more than comparing advertised absorbency levels. Buyers must examine materials, manufacturing controls, user comfort, packaging, and destination-market requirements. A product may perform well in laboratory testing but feel uncomfortable during real use. That difference matters.

Experienced sourcing teams usually begin with verified specifications. They review fiber composition, absorbency test methods, dimensions, withdrawal strength, and applicator quality. Independent laboratory reports can support these claims. However, certificates alone are not enough. Factory audits, batch records, and retained samples provide stronger evidence of consistency. Ask for traceability from raw cotton or rayon materials to finished cartons.

Absorbency must match practical needs, not simply reach the highest possible level. Excessive absorbency can create discomfort and may increase health concerns when products are used incorrectly. Clear instructions, warning labels, and suitable product information should be prepared for each market. Packaging also needs attention. Check seal integrity, multilingual labeling, lot numbers, shelf-life information, and transport performance under heat and humidity.

Global sourcing is rarely perfect. Supplier promises can sound convincing. Samples may not represent full production. Therefore, buyers should compare multiple batches and conduct pre-shipment inspections. Regulatory expectations differ across countries, so qualified local specialists should confirm compliance before purchase. A reliable supplier welcomes questions, documents limitations, and explains corrective actions. Cost still matters, but the lowest quotation can hide higher quality and compliance risks. The goal is a dependable product, not merely a cheaper shipment.

How to Choose Super Absorbent Tampons for Global Sourcing?
Table of Contents [Hide]
1 Define “Super” by FDA Absorbency: 9–12 g per Tampon
2 Match 9–12 g Capacity to Flow and TSS Risk
3 Compare Cotton, Rayon, and Blends by Fiber and Traceability
4 Validate Performance with Syngyna Testing and FDA 21 CFR 801.430
5 Screen Suppliers Against REACH’s 0.1% SVHC Communication Threshold

Define “Super” by FDA Absorbency: 9–12 g per Tampon

When sourcing super absorbent tampons globally, define “super” with measurable data, not promotional language.

Under the FDA absorbency classification, a super tampon holds 9–12 grams in standardized testing.

That range is a specification, not a guarantee of comfort or performance for every user.

Ask suppliers for laboratory results showing the test method, sample size, and batch number.

A clear report should identify absorbency in grams, not only use terms such as “high capacity.”

Check whether the result is close to 9 grams or near 12 grams, because the difference can affect product positioning and packaging claims.

Fiber composition Applicator materials String attachment Dimensions Leakage results

Small details matter.

Do not treat the FDA range as a universal global rule.

Import requirements, labeling duties, and medical product classifications may differ by market.

Confirm each destination’s current requirements with qualified regulatory professionals.

Packaging should state absorbency clearly and avoid unsupported promises.

Super absorbency alone does not prove safety, comfort, or suitability.

Test samples under controlled conditions.

Examine unopened units

Withdrawal force

Expansion shape

Surface dryness

A spreadsheet may look precise, yet supplier data can change between batches.

That is easy to miss.

Keep retained samples and compare production lots before shipment.

If a supplier cannot explain a 9–12 gram result, pause the order and request evidence.

Product decisions should rely on verified records, not confident wording.

Match 9–12 g Capacity to Flow and TSS Risk

How to Choose Super Absorbent Tampons for Global Sourcing?

Match 9–12 g Capacity to Flow and TSS Risk

A 9–12 g tampon capacity can support heavy-flow users, but grams do not equal personal safety. Laboratory capacity tests provide useful comparisons. They cannot predict every user’s bleeding pattern, comfort, or infection risk. A better sourcing decision matches absorbency with actual flow data. For lighter days, a lower absorbency option may be more appropriate. Use the lowest absorbency that manages the flow.

TSS risk deserves careful attention. Toxic shock syndrome is rare but serious, and highly absorbent tampons may increase risk when used incorrectly or left in too long. Product instructions should clearly state replacement intervals, with eight hours as the maximum commonly advised limit. Clear warning language matters. It should be easy to read.

For global sourcing, request independent test reports for capacity, fiber composition, extractables, microbial limits, and skin-contact safety. Review production records and batch consistency, not only a polished sample. Regulatory expectations differ across markets, so confirm labeling, packaging, claims, and documentation before shipment.

A 12 g result may look impressive, yet a rough applicator edge or weak withdrawal cord can undermine user trust. Manufacturing teams should test insertion, expansion, leakage, and removal under realistic conditions.

Human-use feedback is valuable, but it can also be uneven. That weakness needs review. Suppliers should explain test methods, sample sizes, and failed-batch controls without vague promises.

Compare Cotton, Rayon, and Blends by Fiber and Traceability

How to Choose Super Absorbent Tampons for Global Sourcing?

Compare Cotton, Rayon, and Blends by Fiber and Traceability

Fiber choice affects absorbency, structure, comfort, and supply consistency. Cotton offers a familiar feel, but its fibers can vary between harvests and processing lots. Rayon usually provides a more uniform structure and rapid fluid uptake. Blended designs may balance softness with performance, although the exact fiber ratio matters.

Do not trust a material label alone. Request batch-specific composition records, origin details, and processing information. A reliable supplier should connect each finished lot to its fiber source, spinning facility, and production date. Look for controlled absorbency testing, dimensional checks, and independent laboratory reports. Test samples from several lots, not only one attractive pre-production sample.

Traceability can expose practical differences. Cotton records may require farm, ginning, and bleaching documentation. Rayon records should identify the pulp source and conversion process. Blends need separate evidence for every component. Ask how suppliers handle rejected fibers, production changes, and unexpected shortages. Their answers often reveal more than a polished certificate.

Our first review once focused too heavily on maximum absorption. That was a mistake. We later compared fluid uptake, recovery after compression, fiber shedding, and packaging stability. The results were less impressive, but more useful. Global buyers should also review country-specific documentation requirements before approval. “Super absorbent” should describe verified performance, not an untested sales phrase.

Validate Performance with Syngyna Testing and FDA 21 CFR 801.430

When sourcing super absorbent tampons globally, performance claims need laboratory evidence, not supplier promises. Syngyna testing uses synthetic menstrual fluid to measure absorbency, leakage, retention, and fluid uptake under controlled conditions. The EDANA NWSP 010.1.R0 method offers a recognized framework for comparing absorbent hygiene products.

FDA 21 CFR 801.430 provides clear absorbency categories for U.S. labeling. Super absorbency covers 9–12 grams, while Super Plus covers 12–15 grams. Ultra covers 15–18 grams. These values are useful benchmarks during supplier qualification, but they should not be treated as universal global requirements. Sourcing teams must also review destination-market rules and approved label wording.

Ask for raw Syngyna results, test conditions, sample sizes, and batch identification. A strong report should show absorption speed, total capacity, leakage points, and withdrawal integrity. Repeat testing across production lots matters. One impressive sample proves little. Very little.

Packaging claims should match tested performance under the same absorbency category. ASTM and ISO quality principles can support sampling plans, while FDA records remain important for U.S.-bound products. However, laboratory fluid cannot fully reproduce body movement, flow variation, or individual use. That limitation deserves honest discussion. A product may pass Syngyna testing yet feel unsuitable in practice, so independent verification and user-centered evaluation remain necessary before large-volume purchasing.

Screen Suppliers Against REACH’s 0.1% SVHC Communication Threshold

For global sourcing, super absorbency cannot be the only purchasing criterion. Screen every material against REACH’s 0.1% SVHC communication threshold. The relevant article may include the absorbent core, fibers, string, adhesives, dyes, and packaging. A substance above 0.1% by weight can trigger communication duties, even when the finished tampon appears safe. This threshold is not a general safety limit. It is a transparency requirement.

Use the latest ECHA Candidate List as the starting document. ECHA reported 241 entries in its June 2024 Candidate List. Ask suppliers for composition disclosures, concentration ranges, and change-control records. Request separate declarations for each component, not one broad certificate. Independent laboratory screening should support the paperwork. Testing must match the material matrix and likely chemical risks. One test cannot find every SVHC.

The European Commission’s 2023 Safety Gate report recorded 3,412 product alerts across consumer categories. That figure reinforces the value of traceable supplier files. Keep batch codes, technical data sheets, test reports, and signed declarations together. Recheck compliance after formulation changes, factory transfers, or new dyes. A clean declaration may still hide an outdated formulation. This is where many sourcing teams need better discipline. Suppliers should also explain their analytical limits and sampling plans. Low detection is not proof of zero content. Document the uncertainty, then decide whether the evidence is strong enough for the market. Sources: European Chemicals Agency, Candidate List, June 2024; European Commission, Safety Gate Report 2023.

How to Choose Super Absorbent Tampons for Global Sourcing?

Screen suppliers against REACH's 0.1% SVHC communication threshold. The chart shows the mass of an SVHC present at exactly 0.1% by weight in different article sample sizes.

Under REACH Article 33, suppliers must communicate relevant information when a Candidate List substance is present in an article above 0.1% by weight. At the threshold, 0.1% equals 1 mg per gram, 100 mg per 100 grams, or 1 gram per kilogram. Request material declarations and test evidence for the tampon, absorbent core, applicator, packaging, adhesives, and other components, while confirming the current Candidate List status.

Article Source: