Would adding an ingredient that contributes a separate pesticidal effect change the classification analysis?

Would adding an ingredient that contributes a separate pesticidal effect change the classification analysis?

It would, and that is the line the definition draws.

40 C.F.R. § 152.500(a) defines a device as an instrument or contrivance intended for trapping, destroying, repelling or mitigating a pest. EPA states the test for a device in its own words: “A device must work solely by physical means (such as electricity, light or mechanics).” That sentence is EPA's published interpretation in a compliance advisory, not the text of the statute. If something were incorporated into an article to perform its intended pesticidal purpose, the article would no longer answer that description, and it would fall to be considered as a pesticide under 7 U.S.C. § 136(u) instead. The company's position on its own article is unchanged. NanoFlashing™ is a permanent positive polarity engineered into filter media itself. It is a physical property of the filter. A charge is a physical property. It is not a substance or a mixture of substances. The filter therefore incorporates no substance or mixture of substances to perform its intended pesticidal purpose.

Source: 40 C.F.R. § 152.500, as published on eCFR; EPA Compliance Advisory 305F20004 (October 2020), at 1; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, section 3.6.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.