ISO 16890-1 is moving towards a second edition, but a final draft is not a published replacement. For a filter purchase, the immediate task is to keep the standard edition, product data and acceptance requirements aligned—not to assign new classes from an announcement.
At the time of this review, 16 September 2026, ISO lists ISO 16890-1:2016 as published and ISO/FDIS 16890-1 as a draft at stage 50.20. The FDIS ballot stage began on 21 August 2026. That is a useful transition signal, not evidence that every current filter certificate has become obsolete. ISO published standard, ISO revision project
What Part 1 controls
Part 1 establishes the classification framework based on particulate matter efficiency, together with general requirements for assessing, marking and documenting general ventilation filters. It sits alongside the test procedures in the other parts of ISO 16890. A change to the classification document can therefore affect how evidence is interpreted, even when the physical filter design stays the same. ISO 16890-1 scope
That does not mean every revision produces a different class for every product. It means the effect has to be assessed against the final requirements and the actual test data. A class printed on a catalogue page is the end of that assessment, not the information needed to repeat it.
Keep the distinction between three things clear: the design of the filter, the measurements taken from a test specimen, and the rules used to turn those measurements into a declared classification. A change in one does not automatically prove a change in all three.
A project status page is not a list of technical changes
ISO's public project record establishes the revision's stage and identity. It does not provide a complete, verified comparison of the FDIS clauses against the 2016 edition. Its abstract must not be treated as a substitute for the actual draft or the final published document.
For a purchasing team, claims such as “the new standard removes this class” or “all existing reports need retesting” should therefore come with a precise clause, edition and explanation. A supplier should be able to distinguish a proposal, a published requirement and a certification body's transition decision.
If a project intentionally requires compliance with a draft, identify that draft explicitly in the contract and agree how later changes will be handled. Otherwise, asking for “the latest ISO 16890” creates a moving requirement whose meaning can change between quotation, manufacture and delivery.
The series already contains different publication years
Do not expect a correct report to carry the same year beside every part. Eurovent's 2026 Air Filters Technical Certification Rules cite EN ISO 16890-1:2016 alongside Part 2:2022, Part 3:2024 and Part 4:2022. These are different documents performing different functions. Eurovent ECP 11 FIL 2026, reference documents
An engineer reviewing an updated report should first ask which function each reference covers. Did the laboratory change its fractional-efficiency method? Did a loading test use a later edition? Is the classification still declared under the current Part 1? An older year in one field is not, by itself, evidence of an invalid report.
Conversely, changing the year in the report heading is not proof that all necessary work was completed. The supplier's assessment should explain which data remain applicable and whether any additional measurement or document change was required.
Build a transition register around products you actually buy
A practical register can be short. Create one record for each filter model or technically justified family, rather than one generic entry saying “all filters compliant.” Include the current model description, standard editions, report references, airflow and declared ePM performance.
| Question | Record to keep | Decision it supports |
|---|---|---|
| What was originally specified? | Contract class, standard edition and operating duty | Whether a proposed change preserves the order requirement |
| What supports the declaration? | Applicable test reports and product identification | Whether existing measurements remain usable |
| Has the construction changed? | Media, dimensions and relevant assembly revisions | Whether the data still represent the supplied product |
| What does the published revision require? | Supplier's documented comparison against the final text | Whether a revised declaration or additional testing is needed |
| What does certification require? | Certification body's applicable transition instructions | Whether the independent listing must be updated |
| Who accepts the transition? | Named project or quality approval route | When updated documents may replace the existing file |
Scroll the table sideways to see all columns →
This register is a procurement tool, not an additional ISO requirement. Its purpose is to prevent a standards update from becoming an uncontrolled product substitution.
Keep the application requirement stable while the documents change
Consider an illustrative office project specified for ISO ePM1 70% at a stated airflow. The employer also set a clean resistance limit, maximum frame depth and a particular gasket arrangement. A new classification edition would not erase those physical and operating requirements.
Ask the supplier to present the proposed product against the original duty and the new declaration separately. If the class stays the same but pressure drop rises, the fan assessment still matters. If the model name stays the same but the media changes, the documentary review still matters. If a new report uses another test airflow, the comparison needs explanation before approval.
The same approach is useful for framework purchases. Agree which edition governs orders placed before the transition and what evidence accompanies orders placed after it. Keep received-stock records intact; replacing an old report with a new generic PDF can destroy the history needed to understand an earlier delivery.
Do not turn a standards revision into a replacement instruction
An installed filter should be assessed against its actual duty, condition and the installation's maintenance requirements. A publication announcement alone does not demonstrate that the filter has stopped providing the required service.
Equally, continuing to use an existing filter should not be justified merely because its historical report was acceptable. Airflow, resistance, housing condition and any application-specific hygiene or verification requirements remain operational questions. Document control and maintenance have to communicate, but they solve different problems.
ISO itself states that ISO 16890 test results cannot, on their own, quantitatively predict service efficiency and lifetime. That limitation is relevant during a revision: a fresh certificate is not a new service-life prediction for a loaded filter already installed in a building. ISO 16890-1 limitations
Ask a supplier for an impact assessment, not a new date stamp
A useful transition enquiry reads as follows:
“Please identify the standards and editions supporting this model's current declaration. When the revised Part 1 is published, confirm whether its requirements change the classification or documentation for the offered construction. Explain any additional testing, product change or certification update, and identify the reports that support the revised declaration.”
Add the model list and the actual order requirements. This gives the supplier something concrete to assess and gives the buyer a response that can be reviewed.
Three questions to resolve before the next order
Should we wait for the new edition before purchasing? Only if the project's requirements and programme justify waiting. Otherwise, define the applicable published edition and an agreed transition route rather than leaving the purchase ambiguous.
Does a draft automatically cancel an existing classification? No such conclusion follows from draft status. Assess the published replacement, contractual requirements and any certification transition rules when they exist.
Can the supplier promise the future class today? Ask what supports that promise. A documented assessment against an identified draft is different from conformity with a final edition that has not yet been published.
The useful response to a revision is a controlled product-and-document review. Start that review now, and make the final classification decision using the final requirements.
