What Unbelievable Water's Testing Summary Shows

Updated September 4, 2026.

A laboratory result should help you understand a water, not ask you to accept a superlative. The useful questions are concrete: Which product was sampled? What was measured? What limits applied? Was the report final?

Our Certifications page brings together published testing summaries for Recovery and Reserve. This article explains their scope. A website summary is a starting point, not a substitute for the complete laboratory report.

Start with the right product

For Recovery, the published summary identifies Eurofins Eaton Analytical Job No. 380-188240-1, described as an IBWA panel for a 500 mL sample. The PFAS summary reports no detections across the compounds tested.

The same page separately identifies KIAST Report No. 25KA0156 for microplastics and Microbac Laboratories Report A5J1776 for nutritional and mineral composition. These are different analyses answering different questions; the mineral profile is not itself a contaminant screen.

Reserve has a separate source and testing record. Its published water-quality entry is marked preliminary, and the page states that full testing is in progress. Recovery's findings should not be transferred to Reserve, and a preliminary result should not be presented as a final release decision.

For a purchase or professional review that depends on a particular result, request the complete, final, product-specific report through our contact page.

Read “non-detect” with the report legend

A non-detect result does not establish an absolute zero. Its interpretation depends on the analytical method and the laboratory's reporting convention. Detection, quantitation, and reporting limits are related concepts, but they are not automatically the same number.

EPA's technical explanation of method detection limits illustrates why sensitivity is a feature of an analytical procedure and laboratory performance, not just a claim that an instrument can “see everything.” EPA: method detection limits

As an illustrative example, if a report defines a non-detect against a reporting limit of 1 microgram per liter, that result does not distinguish zero from every possible concentration below that limit. The example is not a result or threshold from an Unbelievable report.

A panel also cannot answer for substances it did not test. Nor does one sample establish the condition of every bottle or future production lot. These boundaries matter even when the reported results are favorable.

Microplastics need an additional boundary

Our Recovery summary reports no microplastic particles greater than 45 micrometers detected in the tested sample. It identifies a µ-FTIR method and the KIAST report number.

That statement does not cover all smaller particles or nanoplastics. It should not be shortened to a claim that the water contains no plastic particles of any size. Our microplastics testing explainer discusses why the size range matters.

Five things to look for in a complete report

1. Identity: the product, sample identification, and collection and analysis dates.
2. Scope: the individual substances or particle classes examined.
3. Results: the units, relevant limits, and definitions of flags or abbreviations.
4. Quality controls: the method, laboratory notes, and any qualifications affecting interpretation.
5. Status: the final report and any later amendments, rather than an assumption that a preliminary version cannot change.

The phrase “IBWA panel” does not by itself establish current association membership. Likewise, a laboratory name alone does not establish that every method in a report falls within a particular accreditation scope. Those are separate facts requiring their own documentation.

We want readers to judge our published information by its specificity. Naming the sample and showing the limits is more useful than ranking a test against competitors whose records are not presented.

---

Correction: This article replaces an earlier version that overstated absolute purity, comparative testing rigor, membership implications, and the finality of preliminary results. Those assertions have been removed; this revision does not announce a new laboratory test.