Full transparency

Documents

Every Document We Hold

Full transparency is the rule across Peakspan H2, Nutrae and Geroprotect. Every document that reaches us is published here in full, as a PDF you can open and read, with the certificate number, the issuing laboratory, the signature and the date all visible. Under each one we say what it proves, and, the part that matters more, what it does not.

This page is the register. For every document we hold it records the issuer, the report or certificate number, the date, the exact sample and standard it covers, and an explicit line on what it does not prove. Then it lists, at the same size, the documents we do not hold.

Last reviewed: 27 August 2026

10 documents published in full

5 independent laboratories

8 gaps disclosed, not hidden

Nine third-party documents plus one of our own. Every number below can be quoted back to the laboratory that issued it.

We publish the documents, not descriptions of them

Every page of every report, downloadable. A certificate you cannot read is decoration. If a document is not on this page, we do not have it.

We say who each one was issued to

Every document below was commissioned by a manufacturer, not by us. It is never presented as a Peakspan H2 test result, because it is not one.

We say what each one does not prove

A conformity mark is regulatory paperwork about interference and restricted substances. It is not a performance figure and never a health claim.

Documents, not adjectives

Every document we hold. Published in full.

Two jobs, one grid. Click a page image to jump to that document’s full entry further down, where the number, the issuer, the exact scope and the limits are written out. Click PDF ↓ to take the file straight away, that is the shortcut for anyone who has read this page before and just needs the document for a procurement file.

Hydrogen concentration report LH2025110014-1, first page — Hydrogen concentration · QTT LH2025110014-1

Ozone byproduct report LH2025110015-1, first page — Ozone: not detected · QTT LH2025110015-1

UN 38.3 battery transport test report, first page — UN 38.3 battery · ESTL

UN 38.3 transport test report for the pitcher's lithium-ion cell, DSP25121290-2, first page — UN 38.3 battery, pitcher · ZRLK DSP25121290-2

FDA food-contact test report, first page — Food-contact migration · ZTS

CE EMC certificate, first page — CE (EMC) · ZTS

FCC supplier's declaration of conformity, first page — FCC SDoC · Huaxin

RoHS certificate, first page — RoHS · ZTS

Material safety data sheet, first page — MSDS · ZTS

More certificates are on the way, and the gaps stay published at the same size as the wins. 8 things we do not have, and why. See what we don’t have yet →

All nine were commissioned by a manufacturer, never by us. The tenth document on this page is our own print specification, kept in its own section below so it cannot be mistaken for an independent finding.

The register

What We Hold, At A Glance

Nine documents from five independent laboratories. Take any number below to the laboratory that issued it and check it.

The five laboratories are Guangdong Quantum Testing Technology (QTT) in Foshan, Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service, Guangdong ESTL Technology, Dongguan ZRLK Testing Technology, and Shenzhen Huaxin Information Technology Service. No two of them were commissioned by us.

Document	Number	Issued by	Date	Names our models
Hydrogen concentration test report, the water itself, measured	`LH2025110014-1`	Guangdong Quantum Testing Technology Co., Ltd (QTT), Foshan, Guangdong	1 December 2025	Yes
Ozone byproduct test report, none detected	`LH2025110015-1`	Guangdong Quantum Testing Technology Co., Ltd (QTT), Foshan, Guangdong	1 December 2025	Yes
Food-contact sample test, laboratory protocols	`ZTS26062239DRC`	Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd	27 June 2026	Yes
UN 38.3 transport test report, lithium battery	`S03A25080547U00101`	Guangdong ESTL Technology Co., Ltd	22 August 2025	Yes
UN 38.3 transport test report, lithium-ion cell of the pitcher	`DSP25121290-2`	Dongguan ZRLK Testing Technology Co., Ltd	16 December 2025	Cell only
CE Certificate of Conformity, electromagnetic compatibility	`ZTS26062235UCE`	Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd	27 June 2026	Yes
RoHS Certificate of Conformity, restricted substances	`ZTS26062238SCH`	Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd	27 June 2026	Yes
FCC Supplier's Declaration of Conformity	`HX260623E043C`	Shenzhen Huaxin Information Technology Service Co., Ltd (test laboratory)	23 June 2026	Yes
Material Safety Data Sheet, lithium battery	`ZTS26062309YRM`	Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd	25 June 2026	Yes

The files

Every File, With Its Size

The register above is provenance, who issued what, and when. This is the manifest: the actual files, their weight and their page count, so you know what you are about to download before you tap it on a phone.

File	Format	Size	Pages	What it covers	Download
Hydrogen concentration. QTT `phyflow-h88-hydrogen-concentration-qtt-LH2025110014-1.pdf`	PDF	714 KB	3	One submitted H88 sample; dissolved hydrogen measured in the sealed cup immediately after one 10-minute cycle	Open PDF
Ozone byproduct. QTT `phyflow-h88-ozone-byproduct-qtt-LH2025110015-1.pdf`	PDF	721 KB	3	Same submitted H88 sample; ozone in the water after one 10-minute cycle	Open PDF
Food-contact migration. ZTS `phyflow-h88-w10-2-fda-food-contact-ZTS26062239DRC.pdf`	PDF	818 KB	4	Two parts only. Tritan cup body and aluminium lid. Not the electrode or membrane	Open PDF
UN 38.3 transport. ESTL `phyflow-h88-battery-un38-3-S03A25080547U00101.pdf`	PDF	970 KB	16	Battery pack H88-ZQ-29 only; the eight UN transport-safety tests	Open PDF
UN 38.3 transport, pitcher cell. ZRLK `phyflow-w10-2-battery-un38-3-DSP25121290-2.pdf`	PDF	936 KB	15	The 3.7 V, 3,000 mAh, 11.1 Wh rechargeable lithium-ion cell fitted to the pitcher; the UN transport-safety tests	Open PDF
CE Certificate of Conformity (EMC). ZTS `phyflow-h88-w10-2-ce-emc-ZTS26062235UCE.pdf`	PDF	1.8 MB	1	Electromagnetic compatibility only, under EMC Directive 2014/30/EU	Open PDF
RoHS Certificate of Conformity. ZTS `phyflow-h88-w10-2-rohs-ZTS26062238SCH.pdf`	PDF	1.6 MB	1	Ten restricted substance groups in the electrical equipment	Open PDF
FCC Supplier’s Declaration. Huaxin `phyflow-h88-w10-2-fcc-sdoc-HX260623E043C.pdf`	PDF	202 KB	1	US Part 15 Subpart B Class B emissions, declared on test report HX260623E043	Open PDF
Material Safety Data Sheet. ZTS `phyflow-h88-w10-2-msds-ZTS26062309YRM.pdf`	PDF	5.4 MB	9	Battery composition, first aid, storage, firefighting, transport classification	Open PDF
Logo print specification. Peakspan H2 (our own) `peakspan-h2-v1-logo-print-spec.pdf`	PDF	191 KB	2	Our own artwork, colours and placement. Not a third-party finding	Open PDF
Ten files	PDF	13.2 MB total	55	Nine third-party, one our own	·

Sizes and page counts were read off the files themselves, not estimated. Every PDF is served from this domain, nothing here is a link to a supplier’s website that could change or disappear.

Coverage

Which Document Covers Which Product

A document is evidence for the model printed on it and for nothing else. This grid says, product by product, which of the ten documents names it, and where the blanks are.

Three model codes carry the products through these documents: the H2 Quantum Flask (model H88, also written H88A on two documents), the H2 Pitcher (model W10-2), and the battery pack inside the flask (model H88-ZQ-29). Every cell below is taken from the Names our models line of the register.

Document	H2 Quantum Flask. H88	H2 Pitcher. W10-2	Battery pack. H88-ZQ-29
Hydrogen concentration `LH2025110014-1`	NamedOne submitted sample, sealed cup, end of one 10-minute cycle	Not namedFactory rating; no figure published	Not named
Ozone byproduct `LH2025110015-1`	NamedSame submitted sample, same single cycle	Not namedNo ozone statement may be made for the pitcher	Not named
Food-contact migration `ZTS26062239DRC`	NamedTwo parts only. Tritan cup body and aluminium lid	NamedThe same two submitted parts. Nothing specific to the pitcher was tested	Not named
UN 38.3 transport `S03A25080547U00101`	Not namedCovers the pack fitted to the flask, not the flask	Not named	Named3.7 V, 2,500 mAh, 9.25 Wh
UN 38.3 transport, pitcher cell `DSP25121290-2`	Not named	Cell namedCovers the 3.7 V, 3,000 mAh, 11.1 Wh cell fitted to the pitcher, not the pitcher itself	Not namedA different cell; the flask pack has its own report above
CE Certificate of Conformity (EMC) `ZTS26062235UCE`	Named	Named	Not named
RoHS Certificate of Conformity `ZTS26062238SCH`	Named	Named	Not named
FCC Supplier’s Declaration `HX260623E043C`	NamedListed as H88A (main model) and H88	Named	Not named
Material Safety Data Sheet `ZTS26062309YRM`	NamedListed as H88A (main model) and H88	Named	Not namedDescribes the battery as an article, without the pack model code
Logo print specification Our own document, not a laboratory’s	NamedThe 320 ml bottle body	Not named	Not named
Documents naming it	Seven third-party, plus our own print specification	Five third-party plus the transport report for its cell, none of them a performance test	One third-party

The blank that matters most

The pitcher is named on five documents, food contact, CE (EMC), RoHS, FCC and the safety data sheet, and on none of the two that measure water. There is no W10-2 hydrogen report and no W10-2 ozone report anywhere on this page, so no pitcher concentration figure is published as a verified result. The approved product can be pre-ordered without treating any manufacturer figure as an independent result.

Why the batteries have their own column

UN 38.3 report S03A25080547U00101 was issued to the company that makes the flask pack (model H88-ZQ-29), and report DSP25121290-2 to the company that makes the pitcher cell (3.7 V, 3,000 mAh, 11.1 Wh). Neither was issued to the company that makes the devices, and neither names a device model, so they sit in their own column. Both are the documents an airline or courier asks for.

What no column can show

Every conformity certificate above states that it evaluates a submitted sample, not the production line. A full row of “Named” therefore means the model appears on the paperwork, not that every unit built afterwards was audited. The document that would speak to that is an ISO quality-system certificate, and it is on the missing list below.

Check it yourself

The Five Laboratories, And How To Check Them

A document you cannot check is decoration. Everything you need to check these, the issuing laboratory, the number, the underlying test report number, the date, is on this page.

Laboratory	Where	What it issued	Numbers to quote
Guangdong Quantum Testing Technology Co., Ltd (QTT)	Foshan, Guangdong, China	2 test reports, the only two that measure the water: hydrogen concentration and ozone	`LH2025110014-1` `LH2025110015-1`
Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd	Shenzhen, China	4 documents, food-contact migration, CE (EMC), RoHS and the safety data sheet	`ZTS26062239DRC` `ZTS26062235UCE` (report `ZTS26062235URE`) `ZTS26062238SCH` (report `ZTS26062238SRH`) `ZTS26062309YRM`
Guangdong ESTL Technology Co., Ltd	Guangdong, China	1 test report, the UN 38.3 battery transport series, issued to the battery maker rather than the device maker	`S03A25080547U00101`
Dongguan ZRLK Testing Technology Co., Ltd	Songshan Lake, Dongguan, Guangdong, China	1 test report, the UN 38.3 series for the pitcher’s lithium-ion cell, issued to the cell maker (Anhui TKT New Energy)	`DSP25121290-2`
Shenzhen Huaxin Information Technology Service Co., Ltd	Shenzhen, China	1, the measurements behind the FCC Supplier’s Declaration	`HX260623E043C` (report `HX260623E043`)

Take the file from this page, not from a supplier listing. Every PDF above is served from peakspanh2.com. Nothing here links out to a page that could be edited or taken down after you read it.
Read the number off the document itself and match it to the register. If a number in a marketing image cannot be read at the size it is published, it cannot be quoted back to anyone, which is the reason the collage that used to sit on this page came down.
Check the model on the document is the one you are buying. H88 (and H88A) is the flask, W10-2 is the pitcher, H88-ZQ-29 is the flask battery pack, and the pitcher cell appears only under its own report number. The coverage grid above shows which documents name which, and the blanks are as informative as the entries.
Quote the number to the laboratory that issued it. The applicant named on these documents is a manufacturer, not Peakspan H2, and we publish them unredacted for exactly that reason, a certificate with the applicant blacked out cannot be matched by the laboratory holding the file.
Where a certificate has a test report behind it, ask for both. The CE and RoHS certificates each summarise a separate test report (ZTS26062235URE and ZTS26062238SRH), and the FCC declaration rests on report HX260623E043. The certificate is the conclusion; the report is the measurement.
Read the date, then read what it does not prove. Every entry below carries both. The dates run from 22 August 2025 to 27 June 2026, and the two water measurements are dated 1 December 2025.

Where a document carries a legible signatory we record the name: Hailiang Mo, Lab Manager, on the food-contact report and the safety data sheet; Bert Yang, Senior Manager, on the CE and RoHS certificates. If you check one of these and the laboratory tells you something that does not match what is written here, write to info@peakspanh2.com, a correction on this page is worth more to us than the claim it corrects.

Third-party documents

The Documents Themselves

Click any page image to open the full PDF.

Every entry below follows the same six-part shape: who issued it, its number, its date, the exact sample and standard it covers, what it proves, and an explicit line on what it does not prove. The last of those is the one we would read first.

QTT H2 report LH2025110014-1

Hydrogen concentration test report, the water itself, measured

QTT recorded 8,600 PPB of dissolved hydrogen in the sealed cup immediately after a 10-minute cycle on one submitted H88 sample; the manufacturer commissioned the report.

Issued to our manufacturer. Commissioned by our manufacturer, not by Peakspan H2. We publish it in full and say whose test it is.

Report no.: LH2025110014-1
Issued by: Guangdong Quantum Testing Technology Co., Ltd (QTT), Foshan, Guangdong
Dated: 1 December 2025
Testing: Sample received 21 November 2025; tested 28 November 2025
Standards: T/GDID 1007-2018 - hydrogen-rich water concentration measurement
Names our models: H88
Exact scope: One submitted H88 bottle, filled with Watsons distilled water at 21.2 °C, one 10-minute cycle, dissolved hydrogen read in the sealed cup at the moment the cycle ended. That sealed-cup, end-of-cycle condition is the only condition under which the 8,600 PPB figure may be quoted, and QTT report LH2025110014-1 is the only source for it.
Verify it: Quote report number LH2025110014-1 to Guangdong Quantum Testing Technology Co., Ltd, Foshan. The applicant named on the report is the manufacturer, not Peakspan H2, we publish it unredacted so the laboratory can match it.
Does not cover: The 5-minute mode · the W10-2 pitcher · water left standing or opened · production units other than the sample · any health effect

What the document records
Sample tested	Hydrogen water bottle, model H88, grey - the report photographs our bottle
Method	Watsons distilled water at 21.2 C (74.3 F); one 10-minute hydrogen cycle; measured immediately after the cycle in the sealed cup
Dissolved hydrogen	8,600 x 10^-9 (v/v) = 8,600 PPB (8.6 PPM)
Appearance and leakage	Intact; filled and inverted without leaking
Laboratory conditions	21.2 C, 43% relative humidity

What it proves. That QTT recorded 8,600 PPB dissolved hydrogen in the sealed cup immediately after one 10-minute cycle on one submitted H88 sample using Watsons distilled water at 21.2 C. The manufacturer commissioned the report.

What it does not prove. It was commissioned by the manufacturer. It describes the water the moment the cycle ends inside a sealed cup; hydrogen begins escaping as soon as the bottle is opened, so it is not a figure for water that has been standing. It does not cover the 5-minute mode, it does not cover the pitcher, and it says nothing about health effects. One test, one sample, one laboratory - the report itself states it is responsible only for the sample received.

In practice. The report is evidence for the submitted H88 sample under its stated method. Peakspan did not commission or reproduce the measurement.

The result covers one submitted sample and one stated condition, not every production unit, a retention period, a dose or a health outcome. Dissolved hydrogen declines after opening.

Open the full PDF (714 KB · 3 pages)

Ozone ND

Ozone byproduct test report, none detected

After a full 10-minute electrolysis cycle, ozone in the water was not detected - the byproduct cheap electrolysis bottles can leak into your glass.

Issued to our manufacturer. Commissioned by our manufacturer, not by Peakspan H2. We publish it in full and say whose test it is.

Report no.: LH2025110015-1
Issued by: Guangdong Quantum Testing Technology Co., Ltd (QTT), Foshan, Guangdong
Dated: 1 December 2025
Testing: Sample received 21 November 2025; tested 28 November 2025
Standards: GB/T 5750.11-2023 - standard examination methods for drinking water, disinfectant indices
Names our models: H88
Exact scope: The same submitted H88 bottle as the hydrogen report, same distilled water, same single 10-minute cycle. One analyte only: ozone, reported as not detected in mg/L. Every ozone statement anywhere on this site carries report number LH2025110015-1 beside it, because this report is the only evidence for it.
Verify it: Quote report number LH2025110015-1 to Guangdong Quantum Testing Technology Co., Ltd, Foshan. It is the companion to LH2025110014-1 and the two share a sample and a test week.
Does not cover: Chlorine · any other by-product · the W10-2 pitcher · repeat or back-to-back cycles · production units other than the sample · any health effect

What the document records
Sample tested	Hydrogen water bottle, model H88, grey - the report photographs our bottle
Method	Watsons distilled water at 21.2 C (74.3 F); one 10-minute hydrogen cycle; water tested immediately after the cycle
Ozone concentration	Not detected (ND), mg/L
Appearance and leakage	Intact; filled and inverted without leaking

What it proves. That under drinking-water examination method GB/T 5750.11-2023, ozone was not detected in the water from the submitted H88 sample immediately after one 10-minute cycle.

What it does not prove. It is an ozone result, not a chlorine measurement - no chlorine test has been run on this device, and this site does not claim one. It was commissioned by the manufacturer, not by Peakspan H2. It covers the sample tested, under one method, at one moment; it is not a health claim and not a hydrogen figure.

In practice. A proton-exchange-membrane cell is designed to keep the gases made at the two electrodes apart rather than bubble everything into the drinking chamber. This report is the one piece of evidence we hold that the design did what it is supposed to on the sample tested. It is a single measurement, and we treat it as one.

The laboratory ran both this report and the hydrogen concentration report on the same H88 sample across the same week. File names circulating for these two PDFs are swapped relative to their contents - we publish them under names that match what each report actually measured.

Open the full PDF (721 KB · 3 pages)

Food-contact samples

Food-contact sample test, laboratory protocols

The bottle body and the lid were migration-tested, and bisphenol A was not detected. Note what was handed to the laboratory: two parts, not the whole bottle.

Issued to our manufacturer

Report no.: ZTS26062239DRC
Issued by: Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd
Signed by: Hailiang Mo, Lab Manager
Dated: 27 June 2026
Testing: Sample received 22 June 2026; tested 23-27 June 2026
Standards: US FDA 21 CFR 177.1580 (c)(2) - extractives protocol
US FDA 21 CFR 175.300 - total extractive residues
CEN/TS 13130-13:2005 - BPA by LC-MS/MS
Names our models: H88, W10-2
Exact scope: Two submitted parts and no others: the Tritan cup body and the aluminium lid. Migration into deionised water, n-heptane and 50% ethanol against the stated limits, plus bisphenol A at a 0.05 mg/kg reporting limit. This is the document behind the words BPA-free Tritan on this site, which is a manufacturer material specification confirmed for the submitted body sample.
Verify it: Quote report number ZTS26062239DRC to Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd; the report is signed by Hailiang Mo, Lab Manager.
Does not cover: The electrode plate · the proton exchange membrane · seals, gaskets and threads · the assembled bottle · hydrogen · any health effect

What the document records
Samples given to the laboratory	Two only - cup body (Tritan) and cup lid (aluminium)
NOT given to the laboratory	The electrode plate and membrane assembly that sits in the water
Bisphenol A (BPA)	Not detected - reporting limit 0.05 mg/kg, by LC-MS/MS
Body, extractables in deionised water	Not detected - limit 0.15%
Body, extractables in n-heptane	Not detected - limit 0.15%
Body, extractables in 50% ethanol	Not detected - limit 0.15%
Lid, distilled water 120F/24h	Not detected - requirement 18 mg/inch2
Lid, 8% ethanol 70F/0.5h	Not detected - requirement 18 mg/inch2
Lid, n-heptane 70F/0.5h	Not detected - requirement 18 mg/inch2
Conclusion	Pass, for the two samples tested

What it proves. For the two submitted samples only - identified in the report as a Tritan cup body and aluminium lid - the reported extractives were below the stated limits and bisphenol A was not detected at a 0.05 mg/kg reporting limit.

What it does not prove. It is a laboratory test report measured against FDA regulations. It is not an FDA approval, clearance, registration or endorsement - the FDA does not approve consumer products of this kind - and it says nothing about hydrogen. Most importantly, IT DOES NOT COVER EVERY PART THAT TOUCHES YOUR WATER. The laboratory was given two samples: the body and the lid. The electrode plate and the proton exchange membrane at the base of the chamber - the assembly that sits in your water, under electrical current, for the entire cycle - were not tested. On a device whose whole purpose is to run a current through drinking water, that is the part a careful buyer would most want tested. We have asked for it.

In practice. Treat it as evidence about the two parts named on it. It is why this site says the body and lid were migration-tested rather than the bottle was migration-tested, the difference is a real one, and the untested part is the one sitting in the water under current. Getting that part tested is the first item on our missing list below.

Two regulation mismatches you should know about. 21 CFR 177.1580 is written for polycarbonate resins, and the body is a copolyester, which the FDA clears through a food-contact notification rather than this section. 21 CFR 175.300 covers resinous and polymeric coatings applied over a substrate, and the lid is declared simply as aluminium. The extractives protocols the laboratory ran are recognised and the results are real, but these are not the regulations that govern these two materials. The report is also valid only for the samples tested.

Open the full PDF (818 KB · 4 pages)

UN 38.3

UN 38.3 transport test report, lithium battery

All eight United Nations battery safety tests passed - including crush, overcharge and forced discharge.

Issued to our battery manufacturer. Issued to the company that makes the battery pack, not to our device manufacturer. It covers pack model H88-ZQ-29 - the pack fitted to the bottle.

Report no.: S03A25080547U00101
Issued by: Guangdong ESTL Technology Co., Ltd
Dated: 22 August 2025
Testing: Sample received 6 August 2025; tested 7-21 August 2025
Standards: UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, ST/SG/AC.10/11/Rev.8, Section 38.3 - full set
Names our models: H88-ZQ-29 (the bottle's battery pack)
Exact scope: Battery-pack samples of model H88-ZQ-29, 3.7 V, 2,500 mAh, 9.25 Wh, cell 112248 in a 1S2P arrangement, run through the eight UN transport tests twice over: once new, once after 25 charge cycles. The scope is the pack, not the bottle it goes into.
Verify it: Quote report number S03A25080547U00101 to Guangdong ESTL Technology Co., Ltd. This is the only document on this page issued to the battery maker rather than the device maker.
Does not cover: Hydrogen output · the bottle body, cell or electronics · airline, courier or baggage acceptance · packs other than the samples tested · any health effect

What the document records
T.1 Altitude simulation	Pass
T.2 Thermal test (+72C to -40C, 10 cycles)	Pass
T.3 Vibration (7-200 Hz)	Pass
T.4 Shock	Pass
T.5 External short circuit	Pass
T.6 Impact / crush	Pass
T.7 Overcharge	Pass
T.8 Forced discharge	Pass
Battery	3.7 V, 2,500 mAh, 9.25 Wh - cell 112248 in 1S2P
Tested at	1 charge cycle and again at 25 charge cycles

What it proves. That the submitted H88-ZQ-29 battery-pack samples passed the complete United Nations transport-safety series - no leakage, no venting, no rupture and no fire recorded - when tested new and after 25 charge cycles.

What it does not prove. Nothing about hydrogen output, and nothing about the rest of the device. A UN 38.3 report covers the battery.

In practice. The report records 9.25 Wh and covers the tested battery-pack samples. It does not establish acceptance by any carrier, route or baggage policy. What that means for taking the flask on a plane is answered in full under Battery, charging and travel.

The report is valid for the tested samples only, and the laboratory states it does not carry a CMA qualification mark.

Open the full PDF (970 KB · 16 pages)

UN 38.3

UN 38.3 transport test report, the pitcher’s lithium-ion cell

The cell fitted to the H2 Pitcher passed the United Nations transport-safety test series.

Issued to the cell manufacturer, Anhui TKT New Energy Co., Ltd, not to our device manufacturer. It covers a 3.7 V, 3,000 mAh, 11.1 Wh rechargeable lithium-ion cell.

Report no.: DSP25121290-2
Issued by: Dongguan ZRLK Testing Technology Co., Ltd
Dated: 16 December 2025
Testing: Sample accepted 24 November 2025; tested 24 November to 16 December 2025
Standards: UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Section 38.3
Names our models: The cell only; no device model is printed on it
Exact scope: Rechargeable lithium-ion cell, 3.7 V, 3,000 mAh, 11.1 Wh, run through the UN transport tests. The scope is the cell, not the pitcher it goes into.
Verify it: Quote report number DSP25121290-2 to Dongguan ZRLK Testing Technology Co., Ltd.
Does not cover: Hydrogen output · the pitcher body, electrodes or electronics · airline, courier or baggage acceptance · cells other than the samples tested · any health effect

What the document records
T.1 Altitude simulation	Passed
T.2 Thermal test	Passed
T.3 Vibration	Passed
T.4 Shock	Passed
T.5 External short circuit	Passed
T.6 Impact / crush	Passed
T.8 Forced discharge	Passed
Cell	3.7 V, 3,000 mAh, 11.1 Wh rechargeable lithium-ion

What it proves. That the submitted cell samples passed the United Nations transport-safety tests listed in the report, with the laboratory recording “Passed” on each item.

What it does not prove. Nothing about hydrogen output, and nothing about the rest of the pitcher. A UN 38.3 report covers the cell.

In practice. At 11.1 Wh the cell sits well under the 100 Wh limit most airlines apply to lithium batteries in carry-on baggage, but acceptance is always the carrier’s decision; see Can I fly with it?

The report is valid for the tested samples only.

Open the full PDF (936 KB · 15 pages)

CE (EMC)

CE Certificate of Conformity, electromagnetic compatibility

Meets the EU electromagnetic compatibility standards for household appliances.

Issued to our manufacturer

Certificate no.: ZTS26062235UCE
Test report no.: ZTS26062235URE
Issued by: Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd
Signed by: Bert Yang, Senior Manager
Dated: 27 June 2026
Regulation: EMC Directive 2014/30/EU
Standards: EN IEC 55014-1:2021 (emissions)
EN IEC 55014-2:2021 (immunity)
Names our models: H88, W10-2
Exact scope: One directive and one only. EMC 2014/30/EU. Emissions measured to EN IEC 55014-1:2021 and immunity to EN IEC 55014-2:2021, on submitted samples, for a product declared as a hydrogen water bottle across a 44-model family that includes H88 and W10-2. Underlying test report ZTS26062235URE.
Verify it: Quote certificate number ZTS26062235UCE or test report ZTS26062235URE to Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd; signed by Bert Yang, Senior Manager.
Does not cover: Electrical safety, we hold no Low Voltage Directive or UL document · food contact · hydrogen output · the production line · any health effect

What the document records
Product named	Hydrogen water bottle
Models named	44 models including H88 and W10-2
Finding	In compliance - CE marking may be used for this directive

What it proves. That the device does not emit electromagnetic interference above the European limits for household appliances, and keeps working when interference is directed at it.

What it does not prove. This certificate covers electromagnetic compatibility only. It is not an electrical-safety approval, not a food-contact finding, not a health claim, and not evidence about hydrogen. We hold no Low Voltage Directive document.

In practice. A CE mark on a box tells you a manufacturer has declared conformity with the directives that apply. Ours is documented for one of them. That is why this site says CE (EMC) everywhere rather than a bare CE certified, the parenthesis is the honest part.

The certificate states it is based on a single evaluation of the submitted samples and does not imply an assessment of the whole production.

Open the full PDF (1.8 MB · 1 page)

RoHS

RoHS Certificate of Conformity, restricted substances

Free of the ten substances the EU restricts in electronics - lead, mercury, cadmium and the rest.

Issued to our manufacturer

Certificate no.: ZTS26062238SCH
Test report no.: ZTS26062238SRH
Issued by: Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd
Signed by: Bert Yang, Senior Manager
Dated: 27 June 2026
Regulation: RoHS Directive (EU) 2015/863 amending Annex II to Directive (EU) 2011/65/EU
Standards: IEC 62321-3-1:2013, -4:2013+A1:2017, -5:2013
IEC 62321-6:2015, -7-1:2015, -7-2:2017, -8:2017
EN IEC 63000:2018
Names our models: H88, W10-2
Exact scope: What the equipment is made of, measured against the ten restricted substance groups of (EU) 2015/863: lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, two brominated flame-retardant groups and four phthalates. Submitted samples from the same 44-model family that includes H88 and W10-2. Underlying test report ZTS26062238SRH.
Verify it: Quote certificate number ZTS26062238SCH or test report ZTS26062238SRH to Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd; signed by Bert Yang, Senior Manager.
Does not cover: Migration into drinking water, that is the food-contact report, and it covers two parts · performance · the production line · any health effect

What the document records
Substances restricted	Lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBB, PBDE and four phthalates
Models named	44 models including H88 and W10-2
Finding	Meets the full test requirement of the directive

What it proves. That the sample meets the EU restriction on hazardous substances in electrical equipment across all ten restricted substance groups.

What it does not prove. Restricted-substance conformity is not a food-contact finding, not a performance figure and not a health claim.

In practice. RoHS is about what is inside the electronics, not what reaches the water. The two questions are easy to conflate and a lot of category marketing conflates them. On this site they are kept apart: RoHS answers what is the device built from, and the food-contact report answers what came out of two of its parts.

The certificate states it is based on a single evaluation of the submitted samples and does not imply an assessment of the whole production.

Open the full PDF (1.6 MB · 1 page)

FCC SDoC

FCC Supplier's Declaration of Conformity

Meets the US limits on electronic interference for consumer devices.

Issued to our manufacturer

Certificate no.: HX260623E043C
Test report no.: HX260623E043
Issued by: Shenzhen Huaxin Information Technology Service Co., Ltd (test laboratory)
Dated: 23 June 2026
Standards: FCC Rules Part 15 Subpart B, Class B
Measurement procedure ANSI C63.4:2014
Names our models: H88A, H88, W10-2
Exact scope: Unintentional radio-frequency emissions from a consumer device, measured to ANSI C63.4:2014 against the Part 15 Subpart B Class B limits, on the sample behind test report HX260623E043. The declaration names H88A as the main model and lists H88 and W10-2 with it.
Verify it: Quote declaration number HX260623E043C or test report HX260623E043 to Shenzhen Huaxin Information Technology Service Co., Ltd, the test laboratory. A Supplier’s Declaration is issued by the supplier; the laboratory holds the measurements behind it.
Does not cover: Any FCC approval, certification, listing or endorsement, none exists for this device class · electrical safety · water quality · hydrogen · any health effect

What the document records
Product named	Hydrogen water bottle
Main model	H88A - declaration also lists H88 and W10-2
Finding	In full compliance with Part 15 Subpart B Class B

What it proves. That the device was tested against the US emissions limits for consumer electronics and complies, on the basis of test report HX260623E043.

What it does not prove. A Supplier's Declaration of Conformity is a declaration made by the supplier on the strength of a laboratory test. It is not an FCC approval, an FCC certification or an FCC endorsement, and it says nothing about hydrogen, water quality or health.

In practice. The SDoC route is the correct route for a device of this class; there is no higher FCC document to hold. That also means nobody in this category can honestly say FCC approved, and we do not. The declaration is void if the unit shipped is not the unit that was measured, which is why the test report number matters as much as the declaration number.

The declaration notes that each unit marketed must be identical to the unit tested, and that changes affecting emissions require a retest.

Open the full PDF (202 KB · 1 page)

MSDS

Material Safety Data Sheet, lithium battery

The full safety data sheet for the battery, composition, first aid, storage, transport.

Issued to our manufacturer

Report no.: ZTS26062309YRM
Issued by: Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd
Signed by: Hailiang Mo
Dated: 25 June 2026
Standards: UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, 67th edition (2026), packing instructions 965-967
IMDG Code
Names our models: H88A (main), H88, W10-2
Exact scope: Hazard communication for the lithium battery as an article: declared composition, first aid, handling, storage, firefighting, spill and disposal guidance, and the transport classification UN3480 / UN3481, Class 9, EmS F-A / S-I. It is a data sheet, produced to a disclosure format, not a test of anything.
Verify it: Quote document number ZTS26062309YRM to Shenzhen ZTS Testing Service Co., Ltd; signed by Hailiang Mo. Read it alongside UN 38.3 report S03A25080547U00101, which is the testing behind the transport classification.
Does not cover: Performance of any kind · the water · the device outside its battery · independent confirmation of the declared chemistry · any health effect

What the document records
Classification as an article	Not explosive, not flammable, not oxidising, not toxic, not radioactive
UN number	UN3480 / UN3481, Class 9 lithium battery mark
EmS	F-A, S-I
Main composition	Lithium cobalt oxide 49.5%, graphite 16.3%, lithium hexafluorophosphate 11.0%, aluminium 7.6%, copper 7.0%
Includes	First aid, handling, storage, firefighting, spill and disposal guidance

What it proves. The supplier's declared battery chemistry and the handling, storage, transport and emergency guidance recorded in the safety data sheet.

What it does not prove. A safety data sheet is a hazard-communication document. It is not a performance test and not a quality certification.

In practice. This is the document a freight forwarder, a customs officer or a warehouse safety officer asks for. It is published here for the same reason as the rest, if we hold it, you can read it, rather than because it says anything flattering about the product.

Covers the battery, not the device as a whole and not the water.

Open the full PDF (5.4 MB · 9 pages)

Our own documents

Published For The Same Reason

These are ours, not a laboratory's. They are listed separately so nothing here can be mistaken for an independent finding.

Print spec

Peakspan H2 logo, factory print specification

The exact artwork, colours and placement our own bottles are printed to.

Issued by: Peakspan H2
Dated: 29 July 2026
Document type: Our own production specification. No laboratory, no certificate number, no third party.
Exact scope: Artwork, colour values and print placement for the Peakspan H2 mark on the 320 ml bottle body: emerald #236D50 and chrome silver #939495, vector with outlined paths, placement given in millimetres.
Verify it: Nothing to verify with a third party, hold a bottle against the specification and the two should match. That is the only check this document supports.
Does not cover: Anything about performance, materials, safety or hydrogen

What it proves. Published for the same reason as everything else on this page: you can see precisely what is printed on the product, at what size and in which colours, before it is made. Colours are fixed at emerald #236D50 and chrome silver #939495, the mark is vector with outlined paths, and the placement on the 320 ml body is specified in millimetres.

What it does not prove. It is our own document, not a third-party finding, and it is listed separately for that reason.

Open the full PDF (191 KB · 2 pages)

The honest gaps

What We Still Do Not Have

The documents above are good. They are not everything, and the missing ones are listed at the same size as the ones we hold.

This is the most important section on the page. Any brand can publish the documents it has. The list below is the one we would want to read before buying, so it is published in full, ranked, and it stays here until every line on it is struck out by a document.

The hydrogen test arrived, here is exactly what it does and does not say

Two of the nine documents measure water from submitted H88 samples, and the manufacturer commissioned both. QTT report LH2025110014-1 records 8,600 PPB of dissolved hydrogen in the sealed cup immediately after one 10-minute cycle. Companion report LH2025110015-1 records ozone not detected under its stated method. Each result is limited to the submitted sample and condition.

Model-specific testing for the Pitcher is on our roadmap, so its figures are published as factory ratings, and Peakspan-commissioned testing stays on the roadmap list below.

These are the documents we do not have. They stay on this page until they arrive. The hydrogen concentration test for the bottle used to top this list - it arrived on 2026-07-29 and is now the first document above.

Food-contact test on the electrode and membrane assembly, now the most important gap. The food-contact report we hold covers the bottle body and the lid. It does not cover the electrode plate or the proton exchange membrane, which sit in the water under current for the whole cycle. Until those are migration-tested, 'nothing migrates into your water' is a claim about two parts of the bottle, not about the bottle, and this site will not word it otherwise.
Hydrogen concentration test for the pitcher, the second most important. QTT report LH2025110014-1 covers the H88. A model-specific W10-2 test is on our roadmap; until then no pitcher concentration figure is published.
Chlorine test. The ozone byproduct report (LH2025110015-1) verified no detectable ozone after a full cycle. No equivalent measurement exists for residual chlorine, so the site makes no chlorine claim.
Electrical safety (Low Voltage Directive / UL). Our CE document covers electromagnetic compatibility only. An LVD or UL document would cover electrical safety. We do not have one and do not claim one.
Patent document for the pressure-relief valve. We need the number and the jurisdiction before the word patented carries any weight.
ISO quality-system certificate. A quality system covers how consistently the factory builds. Every certificate above is explicit that it evaluates a submitted sample, not the production line.
Pitcher performance specification. The pitcher's model code W10-2 is named on four of the documents above, so the model is confirmed. Its performance figures come from the factory record, and the approved product can be pre-ordered.
Peakspan H2's own testing. Everything above was commissioned by the manufacturer. Independent verification we commission ourselves is a different and better class of evidence, and we do not have it yet.

Eight gaps, and the ordering is deliberate: the first two are the ones that would change what this site is allowed to say. Until the electrode and membrane are migration-tested, no claim about what does or does not reach your water can be made for the whole bottle. Until a pitcher hydrogen report exists, no PPB figure may be presented as independently measured or laboratory-verified for the Pitcher; no pitcher concentration figure is published at all, and online pre-order does not change that evidence status. When a document arrives it moves up into the register and the line here is struck out, with the date it changed.

Offered, not published

What We Were Handed And Refused

The section above lists documents that do not exist yet. This one lists material that does exist, and the reason it is not on this page.

Publishing a list of the paperwork you are missing is the easy half. This is the other half: claims and images that were on the table, that would have made this page look considerably stronger, and that did not clear the bar. Each is set out the way the documents above are, where it came from, what it claims, and why it is not here.

Refused 01

The certificate collage that circulates in this category

One image showing four certificates side by side, a CE Certificate of Conformity, an FCC Supplier’s Declaration under 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B, a food-contact test report and a RoHS material report to IEC 62321, published on manufacturer product pages as proof that the range is certified. It is the single most reproduced piece of evidence in the hydrogen water category.

Format: A marketing image. No downloadable file, and at the size it is normally published the report numbers cannot be read.
Dated: September 2024
Model named on it: Pfl-H60, a different brand’s model. Not H88, not H88A, not W10-2, and nothing we sell.
Where it appeared: On this page until 29 July 2026, at thumbnail size, with seven others taken from the same catalogue.
Replaced by: The nine numbered documents above, seven of which name H88 directly, five of which also name W10-2.

Why it is not on this page. A conformity document is evidence for the model printed on it and for nothing else. Four certificates issued for a model we do not sell prove nothing about the bottle in your hand, and a number you cannot read is a number you cannot quote back to the laboratory that issued it, which is the only check that matters. The model code is written out above for one reason: so that anyone who has seen this collage elsewhere can confirm for themselves that it is not ours.

Refused 02

“Passed ISO 9001, CE, RoHS, FDA, FCC, MSDS, UL”

One sentence of product-page boilerplate listing seven marks at once. It is the kind of line that gets copied straight into a retailer’s product description, and it reads as though seven documents stand behind it.

Marks claimed: Seven, in a single sentence, with no numbers attached to any of them
Documents we hold: Five, each with a number you can verify: CE (EMC) ZTS26062235UCE, RoHS ZTS26062238SCH, FCC SDoC HX260623E043C, food-contact ZTS26062239DRC, MSDS ZTS26062309YRM
Documents we do not hold: ISO 9001, none. UL, none. Neither word appears anywhere on this site as a claim.
Read closely: “FDA” in that list is a test report measured against FDA regulations, not an FDA approval, clearance or registration. The difference is written out in full in the food-contact entry above.

Why it is not on this page. We publish documents, not lists of documents. Two of the seven marks have nothing behind them that we can hand you, so we repeat neither claim, and both appear on the missing list above, where an ISO quality-system certificate and an electrical-safety document (Low Voltage Directive or UL) are named as gaps rather than quietly implied as wins. A seven-mark sentence with five documents behind it is not a lie by much, and that is exactly why it is the sort of thing worth refusing.

Refused 03

“DuPont N117” printed inside a product graphic

A feature image on the manufacturer’s gallery reads SPE/PEM · DuPont N117 · Platinum Electrode. Naming a specific Nafion membrane grade is a strong technical claim and it would sit very comfortably in our copy.

Where it appears: Inside one marketing image, the only place that grade is named anywhere
Where it does not appear: Not in the specification table, not in the product text, not in any document we hold, and not in anything a supplier has put in writing to us
What we say instead: SPE/PEM cell, described by what it is designed to do, keep the gases made at the two electrodes apart instead of bubbling every by-product into the drinking chamber, and no further
Refused on the same rule: Platinum-coated-titanium plate construction · food-grade silicone seal material · a pressure-relief valve with a stated opening pressure · an IP water-resistance rating · a membrane lifespan figure

Why it is not on this page. A membrane grade written into artwork is artwork, not a specification. There is no test report, no bill of materials and no supplier statement behind it that we could publish here or that you could check, and an unverifiable component claim is worth less than no claim, because it invites you to trust a detail nobody has stood behind. Everything in the last row above was dropped for the same reason: stated nowhere in writing, so claimed nowhere by us.

The closer

The instruction the manufacturer gives its own buyers

“Request model-specific output and test data before making market or performance claims.” That sentence is published by the manufacturer, on its own support pages, addressed to the brands buying from it. We are one of those brands.

What it means: A figure that belongs to a product family does not belong to a model, and a figure that belongs to one model does not belong to another
What following it cost us: Every pitcher hydrogen number. Seven separate sources put the W10-2 somewhere between 1,600 and 4,000 PPB, and no W10-2 report exists, so this site does not present a pitcher concentration figure as an independent result; the approved product can still be pre-ordered with that limitation disclosed
What following it bought us: QTT reports LH2025110014-1 and LH2025110015-1, model-specific, numbered, dated, and reproduced above in full

Why this one is on the page. Because it is the supplier telling its buyers to do precisely what this page does, and because it is the reason the three items above it were refused. The standard is not one we invented to look careful, it is printed on the manufacturer’s own website, and most of this category walks past it.

Four items, one rule behind all of them: a claim is worth what the document with the model number on it is worth. That rule is why the register above is shorter than the marketing in this category, and why the missing list above it is longer. If any of these four ever turns into a real, numbered document, it moves up into the register and this entry is struck out with the date it changed. For why a concentration figure cannot be read without its method attached, see how a hydrogen figure has to be measured on the specifications page.

What each mark means

Certificates, Explained

None of these is a health claim, none is a performance figure, and none of them is ours, every one was commissioned by a manufacturer.

Hydrogen concentration and ozone testing (QTT)

The only two documents here that measure the water itself. An independent laboratory filled a real H88 with distilled water, ran one 10-minute cycle, and measured immediately: 8,600 PPB of dissolved hydrogen under method T/GDID 1007-2018 (QTT report LH2025110014-1), and ozone not detected under drinking-water method GB/T 5750.11-2023 (QTT report LH2025110015-1). The hydrogen figure is a sealed-cup, end-of-cycle measurement, it falls once the bottle is opened, and both reports were commissioned by the manufacturer, not by us.

FDA 21 CFR food-contact testing

A laboratory test of the parts that touch your water, measured against the United States food-contact regulations, how much, if anything, migrates out of the material into water, alcohol and oil substitutes. Ours found nothing above the detection limit, and no bisphenol A at all. It is a test report measured against FDA rules; it is not an FDA approval, clearance or endorsement, and the FDA does not approve products of this kind.

UN 38.3 battery transport testing

A United Nations battery transport-test series covering altitude, thermal cycling, vibration, shock, short circuit, crush, overcharge and forced discharge. Report S03A25080547U00101 records all eight as passed for submitted H88-ZQ-29 pack samples tested new and after 25 charge cycles. It covers those battery-pack samples, not the rest of the device or acceptance by a carrier.

A declaration that the product named on the certificate meets a specific European Union directive. Ours covers the EMC Directive, electromagnetic compatibility, which means the device neither emits interference above the European limits nor stops working when interference is directed at it. It is not an electrical-safety approval and it says nothing about how well the product works.

FCC Supplier's Declaration of Conformity

A declaration by the supplier, on the strength of a laboratory test report, that the device stays within the United States limits on electromagnetic interference. It is a declaration rather than an approval: the FCC does not certify a device of this class, and the declaration is void if the unit sold differs from the unit tested.

RoHS

Restriction of Hazardous Substances, the EU limit on lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, two flame-retardant groups and four phthalates in electrical equipment. It is about what the device is made of, not what it does.

MSDS / Safety Data Sheet

A hazard-communication document for the battery: what is in it, what to do if it leaks or catches fire, how it must be stored, and the UN numbers and packing instructions that let it be shipped. It is a safety document, not a quality certificate.

Certificate number, test report number, and why you want both

Three of the documents above come in two parts. The CE certificate ZTS26062235UCE summarises test report ZTS26062235URE; the RoHS certificate ZTS26062238SCH summarises test report ZTS26062238SRH; the FCC Supplier’s Declaration HX260623E043C rests on test report HX260623E043. The certificate is the conclusion, the report is the measurement behind it. Both numbers are published here because either one on its own can be checked, and because a certificate quoted without the report number underneath it is the shape most category marketing takes.

Model codes: H88, H88A, W10-2, H88-ZQ-29

Four codes appear across these documents. H88 is the H2 Quantum Flask; H88A is how the same flask is written on the FCC declaration and the safety data sheet, where it is listed as the main model with H88 beside it; W10-2 is the H2 Pitcher; H88-ZQ-29 is the battery pack fitted to the flask, and it appears on the UN 38.3 report only. The CE and RoHS certificates each cover a 44-model family that includes H88 and W10-2. The coverage grid higher up this page maps every document onto those codes, which is the only way to see that the pitcher appears on five documents and on neither of the two that measure water.

Our own documents, kept apart

One of the ten files on this page is ours: the factory print specification for the Peakspan H2 mark. It has no laboratory, no certificate number and no third party behind it, so it sits in its own section rather than in the register, and it is the one row in the file table marked as our own. It is published for the same reason as the rest, if we hold it, you can read it, and it is kept apart so it cannot be counted as independent evidence of anything.

Why every certificate says "a single evaluation"

Each conformity certificate above states in its own words that it is based on a single evaluation of the submitted sample and does not imply an assessment of the whole production. That is standard and we are not going to paraphrase it away: it means a sample was tested, not that every unit built afterwards is audited. A quality-system certificate such as ISO would speak to that, and we do not have one.

Want the short version of how we compare? See the comparison, including the rows we lose.

Judging a bottle by its documents? The 2026 buyer’s guide is the criteria we apply, third-party PPB measurement, ozone testing, honest limits, with our own H88 measured against them.