Is Waterdrop NSF certified? What the databases show for each model

The short version

• 4 of 4 Waterdrop refrigerator filters in our sample were listed with NSF for the exact model sold (capture 2026-08-07).
• All 4 are filed under the manufacturer Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd.
• 3 of 4 carry NSF/ANSI 53 as well as NSF/ANSI 42; WD-F38 carries 42 only.
• 3 of 4 listings cite NSF/ANSI 372, which the NSF drinking-water listing does not show for those element codes.
• Waterdrop is the only aftermarket brand in the 45-SKU sample with more than one SKU where every model checked was certified for the exact model sold.

Every Waterdrop model we checked is certified for the exact model sold

The table above is the row-by-row record. The scope moves between models in ways the listing language blurs, so it is worth reading the four rows once in prose.

WD-DA29-00020B is the replacement for Samsung’s DA29-00020B / HAF-CIN/EXP. It is certified NSF/ANSI 42, 53 and 401. Two sibling element codes, WDS-DA2900020B and WDP-DA2900020B, carry the same three standards. The listing claim reads “NSF-53 Certified”, which is true and names one of the three standards held.

LT1000PC covers LG’s LT1000P / ADQ74793501 family. Its element code WD-LT1000P is filed under Waterdrop EFF-6046S and is certified NSF/ANSI 42, 53 and 401.

The LT700P replacement splits across two element codes under one parent listing, Waterdrop EFF-6032S. WD-LT700P holds NSF/ANSI 42. WDP-LT700P holds NSF/ANSI 53 and 401. Which code is on the box decides whether the health-effects standard applies to the unit you bought.

WD-F38, the replacement for Whirlpool’s EDR1RXD1 (Filter 1), is filed under Waterdrop EFF-6038S1 alongside WD-F38-AL and is certified NSF/ANSI 42 only.

One pattern runs through all four rows. The certification exists, it is model-specific, and the model-specific part is where the listing language gets loose. The sample frame behind these four rows, and every other row in the study, is in the 45-filter verification study.

Waterdrop’s certification is filed under a contract manufacturer, which changes how you search

The certificate record names the maker, not the retailer. On all four Waterdrop rows the manufacturer field reads Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd. Searching NSF by the brand name does return these records, so the brand works as a search term. But the record you land on is filed under a Chinese contract manufacturer, and for the LG and Whirlpool models it is filed under a parent code (EFF-6046S, EFF-6032S, EFF-6038S1) with your model sitting inside that parent as an element.

That filing structure explains a failure mode we hit repeatedly across the 45 rows. When a search on the retail brand returns nothing, the certification often sits under the manufacturer’s name or under a sibling element code. The same manufacturer appears elsewhere in our sample: AquaCrest’s five NSF-listed models are Qingdao Ecopure listings, and the model number EDR1RXD1 in our Whirlpool lane maps only to Qingdao Ecopure, not to Whirlpool at all. The parent code does not fix the scope either. EFF-6032S carries one Waterdrop element at 42 and another at 53 and 401, and the same parent appears in our sample under a different retail brand whose element is listed at 42 only. Search the element code, then read the standards attached to that code rather than to the brand.

The listing wording and the database record disagree on three of the four rows

Our dataset records a claims delta for every SKU: what the listing asserts against what the databases show for that exact model. All four Waterdrop rows resolved, so none of the deltas is an unresolved one. One row is clean and three are not.

• WD-DA29-00020B: match. The “NSF-53 Certified” claim is narrower than the record, and true.
• LT1000PC: mismatch. The listing title reads “NSF Certified”; the brand site wording reads “NSF 42, 372 certified”. NSF does not show 372 for element WD-LT1000P, while the element does hold 53 and 401, which the listing never mentions.
• LT700P replacement: mismatch. The claim captured was “NSF 42, 372 certified”. Same shape: 372 not shown, 53 and 401 held and unmentioned.
• WD-F38: overstates. The claim is “NSF 42 and NSF 372 certifications”. NSF/ANSI 42 is confirmed for the element; 372 is not shown for it.

Two different failures are at work here. A listing that names a standard it does not hold is making an unsupported claim. A listing that leaves off a standard it does hold under-informs, which is a milder problem on its own, though the effect on a buyer comparing two boxes is the same: the badge does not tell you the scope. The difference between certification language and standards language, between a filter certified by a body and one merely tested or said to meet a standard, is what most of these errors turn on.

Three of the four Waterdrop models sit on the standard that lead removal is certified under

NSF/ANSI 42 covers aesthetic effects; our own rows describe it as chlorine reduction and material or structural integrity. NSF/ANSI 53 is the standard that lead-removal certification sits under. The only substantial independent lab programme in this category, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers’ 2018 test of 32 counterfeit refrigerator filters, tested against the NSF/ANSI lead-removal standard: all 32 failed. NSF/ANSI 372 is a lead-content standard for the materials that touch water, separate from the filtration listing; our own row note records that 372 is not always co-listed in the drinking-water treatment listing.

That sorts the four models. WD-DA29-00020B, WD-LT1000P and WDP-LT700P carry 53, so they are the three with a certified health-effects scope in our capture. WD-F38 carries 42 only, so nothing in our record supports a lead-reduction claim for it, and the 372 reference in its listing does not fill that gap even before you note that the database does not show 372 for that element.

One limit applies to all of this. Our dataset records the standard each element holds, not each individual contaminant claim inside that standard, so this page can tell you which Waterdrop models sit on 53 and cannot tell you from the record alone which contaminants within 53 are claimed for each element. The wider question of independent lead testing of refrigerator filters, and how thin that record really is, is set out in the independent lead-testing record.

Waterdrop is the only multi-SKU aftermarket brand in our sample with a clean sheet

Across the 45 best-selling refrigerator filters in our sample, 15 (33%) were certified for the exact model sold and 30 (67%) could not be confirmed for the exact model sold. Waterdrop is the only aftermarket brand with more than one SKU where every model we checked came back certified. No other multi-SKU aftermarket brand managed it:

• ICEPURE: 3 of 6. RWF5200A resolved as certified under NSF/ANSI 42 and 372; RWF3600A and RWF1500A resolved as certified under 372 only; three models did not come back certified for the exact SKU.
• GlacierFresh: 2 of 4. Both certified rows are NSF/ANSI 42 only, and the other two were brand-listed but model-absent.
• AquaCrest: 0 of 6, despite the brand genuinely holding NSF listings for five other models. All five of those are NSF/ANSI 42 only and none is a model we checked.

The comparison with the fridge makers is sharper. Waterdrop’s WD-DA29-00020B is certified for the exact Samsung replacement model, while Samsung’s own DA29-00020B / HAF-CIN/EXP is brand-listed but absent from the listings for that model. LG’s own LT1000P / ADQ74793501 and LT700P could not be verified under any corporate name we tried, while Waterdrop’s replacements for both are certified. Five of the seven OEM rows in the study were not confirmed for the exact model sold: Samsung’s DA29-00020B / HAF-CIN/EXP, both LG SKUs, Whirlpool’s EDR1RXD1 (Filter 1) and Frigidaire’s WF3CB (PureSource 3). Only GE’s XWFE and RPWFE came back certified. Absence from a public listing is not a finding of counterfeiting, and the two must be kept apart. The full breakdown is in the 45-filter verification study.

What we could not determine

Four models is not the whole Waterdrop catalogue. We checked the four that appeared in our best-seller sample, and certification scope can differ on models we did not check.

The 372 findings mean the database did not show 372, which is not the same as 372 not being held. Our searches ran against NSF’s drinking-water treatment unit listing, and our own row note records that NSF/ANSI 372 is a separate lead-content programme that is not always co-listed with a filtration listing. We keep those two statements apart: the database does not show 372 for those element codes, and we cannot say from this pass whether a 372 listing exists somewhere else.

We recorded standards, not per-contaminant reduction claims, and we did not verify certificate numbers against NSF directly.

Every figure here is as of the 2026-08-07 capture, and listings and certifications change. None of it is lab data: a certification is a record of design testing and surveillance, not a measurement of the filter in your fridge. The independent lead-testing record, such as it is, is at the independent lead-testing record.

The Refill Report has a Waterdrop affiliate relationship; the method behind this page and the disclosure policy are set out in full.

Where to go next

If the question is whether the filter already in your fridge is certified, the 45-row verification study sets out how each SKU resolved and where the databases were silent. If the question is which standard you need for lead, the independent lead-testing record covers what has and has not been lab-tested. To find which filter fits your fridge, the fitment index lists 50 fridge models with the filters we checked against each.