{"id":916,"date":"2026-08-18T10:41:09","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T02:41:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/?p=916"},"modified":"2026-08-18T10:41:09","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T02:41:09","slug":"what-is-the-difference-between-hepa-and-ulpa-filters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/what-is-the-difference-between-hepa-and-ulpa-filters\/","title":{"rendered":"Wat is het verschil tussen HEPA- en ULPA-filters?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Department of Energy defines HEPA-filters<\/a><\/span> as removing at least 99.97% of particles measuring 0.3 \u03bcm. In contrast, EN 1822:2019 defines ULPA-filters<\/a> <\/span>as removing at least 99.999% of particles measuring the most-penetrating size (typically 0.1\u20130.15 \u03bcm). ULPA filters are divided into three grades (U15, U16, and U17), which sit above the two HEPA grades (H13 and H14) within the same classification system [EN 1822-1:2019; ISO 29463-1:2017]. These two categories differ in terms of not only efficiency, but also test methodology, pressure drop, total cost of ownership, and the contamination-control environments they are designed to serve.<\/p>\n

HEPA Filters Explained<\/h2>\n

HEPA stands for ‘high efficiency particulate air’. It is a performance designation, not a brand. The term originated during the Manhattan Project and was formalised in the 1960s by the US Department of Energy to describe filtration media that remove 99.97% of particles at the most penetrating particle size (MPPS) under a standardised hot DOP (dioctyl phthalate) or DEHS challenge. The 0.3 \u00b5m benchmark reflects the particle size at which diffusion, interception and impaction are collectively least effective, meaning a filter performing at this level will also be effective against larger and smaller particles [U.S. DOE, DOE-STD-3020-2015; ASHRAE 52.2-2017].<\/p>\n

Modern HEPA filter elements are constructed from a mat of randomly arranged microfibres (typical diameter 0.5\u20132.0 \u03bcm), or increasingly from pleated microfibres or expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) media supported by aluminium or polymer separators that form a corrugated pack. Air is forced through this dense web via four mechanisms: straining, impaction, interception, and diffusion. Straining and impaction catch larger particles, while interception captures medium-sized particles by directing them around fibres. Diffusion traps sub-micron particles through Brownian motion. A typical H13 or H14 HEPA filter in a standard 24\u00d724\u00d712 in format weighs between 8 and 25 kg, depending on the construction of the media and frame, and is designed to operate at an initial pressure drop of 120\u2013250 Pa at its rated airflow (Camfil, AAF Flanders and MANN+HUMMEL product data sheets).<\/p>\n

In consumer markets, the term ‘HEPA’ is often used loosely. According to the European standard EN 1822-1:2019, HEPA is subdivided into two classes only: H13 (integral efficiency \u2265 99.95%) and H14 (integral efficiency \u2265 99.995%). The maximum local penetration is 0.25% and 0.025%, respectively. The older H10, H11, and H12 classes from EN 1822:2009 were reclassified as EPA (Group E) in the 2019 revision. In the US, ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2017 equates HEPA performance with MERV 17\u201320; however, this is an averaging method across multiple particle sizes, rather than the strict MPPS test employed in EN 1822. For any application where HEPA performance is contractual or regulated, it is the EN 1822 class, the IEST-RP-CC001 type, and the individual filter test report that should be requested, rather than the word ‘HEPA’ on a product brochure.<\/p>\n

ULPA Filters Explained<\/h2>\n

ULPA stands for ‘Ultra Low Penetration Air’. It refers to a class of filters that are one to two orders of magnitude more efficient than HEPA filters, with a minimum collection efficiency of 99.999% at the MPPS. According to EN 1822-1:2019, ULPA filters fall into three categories: U15 (integral \u2265 99.9995%, local penetration \u2264 0.0025%), U16 (integral \u2265 99.99995%, local penetration \u2264 0.00025%) and U17 (integral \u2265 99.999995%, local penetration \u2264 0.0001%) [EN 1822-1:2019]. The Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology uses equivalent A\/B\/C type designations in IEST-RP-CC001.6, the reference document used across the US semiconductor industry.<\/p>\n

As the MPPS shifts towards smaller particles as filter efficiency increases (typically 0.1\u20130.15 \u00b5m for U15\u2013U17), ULPA media is engineered with finer fibres, a higher basis weight, and tighter pleat packs. Most ULPA filters use sub-micron glass microfibres or ePTFE membranes laminated to a substrate in mini-pleat configurations with over 200 pleats per linear foot. This density results in a significant pressure drop: a U15 or U16 filter typically has an initial pressure drop of 250\u2013380 Pa, compared to 120\u2013250 Pa for an equivalent H13\/H14 HEPA filter. This pressure difference translates directly into higher fan energy costs, larger motor requirements, and increased operating costs (MANN+HUMMEL Air Filtration, 2024; Camfil technical white papers).<\/p>\n

ULPA filters are not necessarily “better” in every scenario; they are overspecified for most commercial HVAC and residential applications. They are most valuable in environments where a single sub-micron particle can cause yield loss, infection, or product failure. The main markets are semiconductor front-end fabrication (ISO Class 3 and below), pharmaceutical aseptic filling (EU GMP Grade A), biotechnology and gene therapy production, hospital compounding pharmacies, aerospace optics and laser assembly, and high-containment (BSL-3\/BSL-4) laboratories. The transition from H14 to U15 is not marginal; in a modern 300 mm fab running 24\/7, the additional particle control can mean the difference between a 92% and a 95% wafer yield. On an advanced node, this is worth tens of millions of dollars annually (industry analyst estimates, 2023\u20132025).<\/p>\n

\"Hepa\/ulpa
HEPA\/ULPA-filters<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Filter Classification Systems Compared<\/h2>\n

The most rigorous and globally recognized framework is EN 1822 \/ ISO 29463, which mandates individual filter scanning with an MPPS challenge aerosol and provides full classification down to the U17 grade. The following table summarizes the principal standards used to specify HEPA and ULPA performance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Standaard<\/td>\nRegion<\/td>\nHEPA Classes<\/td>\nULPA Classes<\/td>\nTest Aerosol<\/td>\nReported At<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EN 1822-1:2019<\/td>\nEurope (CEN)<\/td>\nH13, H14<\/td>\nU15, U16, U17<\/td>\nDEHS \/ Paraffin oil<\/td>\nMPPS (0.1\u20130.3 \u03bcm)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ISO 29463-1:2017<\/td>\nGlobal (ISO)<\/td>\nISO 35 H, ISO 45 H<\/td>\nISO 55 U, ISO 65 U, ISO 75 U<\/td>\nDEHS \/ Paraffin oil<\/td>\nMPPS (0.1\u20130.3 \u03bcm)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
IEST-RP-CC001.6<\/td>\nUSA<\/td>\nType A<\/td>\nType B, Type C<\/td>\nPAO \/ DOP<\/td>\nMPPS (0.1\u20130.3 \u03bcm)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOE-STD-3020-2015<\/td>\nUSA<\/td>\nHEPA only<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\nDOP \/ latex<\/td>\n0.3 \u03bcm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ASHRAE 52.2-2017<\/td>\nUSA<\/td>\nMERV 17\u201320<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\nKCl<\/td>\n0.3\u201310 \u03bcm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ISO 16890:2016<\/td>\nGlobal<\/td>\nePM1 95% (\u2248 E10)<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\nDEHS<\/td>\nMultiple<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A critical change in EN 1822-1:2019 is the explicit prohibition of photometer-based scan testing for H and U class filters \u2014 only particle-counter-based scanning is permitted for classification. This tightens the test method relative to ISO 29463-1:2017 and makes EN 1822 the strictest available specification for HEPA\/ULPA filter acceptance testing [EN 1822-1:2019, Clause 7]. Every H13\u2013U17 filter is delivered with an individual test report and a serial number, which the document procurement, quality, and validation teams should archive for the life of the filter.<\/p>\n

Core Technical Differences<\/h2>\n

The table below summarizes the practical differences between the HEPA grades most often specified (H13 and H14) and the lowest ULPA grade (U15). Higher ULPA grades (U16, U17) are used only in the most demanding semiconductor and pharmaceutical applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Parameter<\/td>\nHEPA H13<\/td>\nHEPA H14<\/td>\nULPA U15<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Integral efficiency (at MPPS)<\/td>\n\u2265 99.95%<\/td>\n\u2265 99.995%<\/td>\n\u2265 99.9995%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maximum local penetration<\/td>\n\u2264 0.25%<\/td>\n\u2264 0.025%<\/td>\n\u2264 0.0025%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
MPPS range<\/td>\n0.1\u20130.2 \u03bcm<\/td>\n0.1\u20130.2 \u03bcm<\/td>\n0.1\u20130.15 \u03bcm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Typical initial pressure drop<\/td>\n120\u2013180 Pa<\/td>\n150\u2013220 Pa<\/td>\n250\u2013350 Pa<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Common media<\/td>\nMicroglass, PTFE<\/td>\nMicroglass, PTFE<\/td>\nSub-micron glass, ePTFE, mini-pleat<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Frame sealing<\/td>\nUrethane gasket<\/td>\nUrethane or gel<\/td>\nGel seal or knife-edge fluid seal<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Typical service life<\/td>\n5\u201310 years<\/td>\n5\u201310 years<\/td>\n3\u20137 years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Indicative cost (24\u00d724\u00d712 in.)<\/td>\n$200\u2013$500<\/td>\n$400\u2013$900<\/td>\n$1,200\u2013$3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cleanroom target<\/td>\nISO 6\u20138 \/ GMP C\u2013D<\/td>\nISO 5 \/ GMP A\u2013B<\/td>\nISO 3\u20134 \/ Grade A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Energy penalty vs H13<\/td>\nBaseline<\/td>\n+10\u201325%<\/td>\n+50\u2013120%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The most significant differences do not lie in the headline efficiency number, but in three practical areas. Firstly, in terms of leak testing, every H and U class filter under EN 1822-1:2019 must undergo individual scan testing at the MPPS using a particle counter. In contrast, older DOE HEPA tests only required testing of a representative sample. The scan test detects pinhole leaks, gasket failures, and media defects that a sample-only test might miss. This is why semiconductor fabrication plants will reject a U15 filter with even a single 0.01% local penetration spike. Secondly, there are differences in bypass and frame design. ULPA filters typically use gel or knife-edge seals in a rigid aluminium frame, whereas HEPA filters often use urethane gaskets in a steel frame. Gel seals are more reliable at ULPA housing differential pressures and reduce bypass leakage to under 0.001%. Thirdly, in-situ testing: once installed, an ULPA filter must pass an in-situ PAO or DEHS scan in accordance with ISO 14644-3 and IEST-RP-CC003. No repairs are permitted above a defined leak rate. In-situ testing of HEPA filters is more lenient and is conducted annually rather than at every installation in most facilities.<\/p>\n

Standards, Testing, and Certification<\/h2>\n

HEPA and ULPA filters are governed by a set of layered standards covering design qualification, in-situ performance, and end-to-end cleanroom validation. The hierarchy is as follows:<\/p>\n

Product standard: EN 1822-1:2019 or ISO 29463-1:2017 for efficiency class, MPPS, and individual leak testing. The IEST-RP-CC001.6 standard maps these performance tiers to the A\/B\/C\/D nomenclature used in the US.<\/p>\n

The test method is defined by the following standards:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • EN ISO 29463-2 (aerosol generation, measurement equipment and statistics);<\/li>\n
  • EN ISO 29463-3 (flat-sheet media testing);<\/li>\n
  • EN ISO 29463-4 (leak scan method);<\/li>\n
  • EN ISO 29463-5 (filter element efficiency test).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    The application standard is ISO 14644-3:2005 for cleanroom in-situ testing; IEST-RP-CC003 for HEPA\/ULPA in-situ PAO\/DEHS scanning; EU GMP Annex 1 (2022 revision) for sterile manufacturing; and the FDA’s 2004 aseptic processing guidance for pharmaceutical Grade A\/B\/C spaces.<\/p>\n

    Energy and sustainability: Eurovent 4\/21 for the energy efficiency classification of air filters and ISO 16890:2016 for general ventilation reporting.<\/p>\n

    A common procurement mistake is to specify only an ‘EN 1822 H14’ or ‘IEST Type A’ filter, rather than also requiring the scan-test certificate, the MPPS value, and the maximum allowable local penetration. Without these, two filters in the same nominal class can differ in actual efficiency by an order of magnitude. The strongest RFQs \u2014 used by buyers at TSMC, Samsung, Pfizer and major hospital systems \u2014 request the following: (a) an individual scan test report for each filter; (b) resistance to airflow at the rated volume; (c) dust-holding capacity in accordance with ASHRAE 52.2 or Eurovent 4\/21; and (d) burst pressure and gasket integrity in accordance with IEST-RP-CC001.<\/p>\n

    Application Environments<\/h2>\n

    HEPA filters are the default choice in the following sectors:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Healthcare: operating rooms, isolation rooms, negative-pressure wards and USP 797\/800 compounding pharmacies<\/li>\n
    • Commercial HVAC: premium office towers, airports and museums<\/li>\n
    • Residential and consumer: vacuum cleaners and air purifiers \u2014 in U.S. consumer marketing, “True HEPA” refers to a minimum of H12\/99.5% at 0.3 \u03bcm in most products<\/li>\n
    • Food and beverage: ISO 7\u20138 zones in aseptic packaging lines<\/li>\n
    • Nuclear and defence: DOE- and NRC-regulated facilities<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      ULPA filters are required in situations where even a single escaped particle could result in product loss or patient harm. These include semiconductor processes such as lithography, etching and chemical mechanical polishing (CMP), which typically require ISO 3\u20134 conditions with U15 or U16 in the make-up air and U17 in the minienv or tool envelope. Other applications include pharmaceutical aseptic filling in EU GMP Grade A isolators with U15 in the recirculation and U16 in the supply, biotech and gene therapy processes such as viral vector production where viral aerosols demand a minimum of U15, data storage processes such as hard disk drive assembly and optical media production, and aerospace and optics processes such as laser gyro assembly and satellite payload integration. High-containment laboratories such as BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities typically require U15 filters in pairs with redundant blower systems for exhaust.<\/p>\n

      \"HEPA\/ULPA
      HEPA\/ULPA-filters<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      Cost, Energy, and Lifecycle Considerations<\/h2>\n

      The total cost of ownership for HEPA versus ULPA extends well beyond the initial cost of the units. For example, a hospital operating 24 HEPA H14 units in an air handling unit serving a 2,000 m\u00b2 operating theatre will spend roughly 35% less on fan energy annually than if the same configuration were upgraded to U15. Over 10 years, the cost of fan energy (based on $0.12\/kWh and 8,760 hours of operation per year) typically exceeds the cost of replacing the filters by a factor of 2\u20133\u00d7 for HEPA and 4\u20136\u00d7 for ULPA. Therefore, a facility that does not require ULPA performance is effectively paying for a higher-class filter twice: once at purchase and again every hour that it remains in operation.<\/p>\n

      The logic is reversed in a semiconductor fab. Losing a single yield point on a 50,000-wafer-per-month advanced-node production line costs roughly $5\u201310 million per year. The marginal energy cost of upgrading from H14 to U16 across the fab’s recirculation system is typically $1\u20133 million per year. The maths support the upgrade. In pharmaceutical aseptic filling, EU GMP Annex 1 (2022) and the FDA’s 2004 aseptic processing guidance treat Grade A as a non-negotiable specification, so the question of whether to use ULPA is decided by regulation rather than return on investment.<\/p>\n

      Maintenance intervals also differ. HEPA filters in clean HVAC systems usually last 5\u201310 years before they need to be replaced due to loading; ULPA filters in fabs and isolators are typically replaced every 2\u20135 years, often according to differential-pressure setpoints and tool-availability windows rather than calendar time. Pre-filters (G4\/MERV 8) extend the life of HEPA\/ULPA filters by 3\u20135 times and substantially reduce the total cost of ownership \u2014 a point that many procurement teams do not give enough weight to.<\/p>\n

      How to Choose Between HEPA and ULPA?<\/h2>\n

      The decision should be based on the answers to the following five questions, in this order:<\/p>\n

      What is the regulatory or contractual specification? The FDA, EU GMP, ISO 14644, NRC, or customer requirements may mandate a specific class.<\/p>\n

      What is the cleanroom or controlled-space classification? ISO Class 3\u20134 generally requires U15 or above. ISO Class 5\u20137 can typically be served by H13 or H14 filters. Classes 8 and below usually require only G4\u2013F9 pre-filtration plus an H10\u2013H12 final filter.<\/p>\n

      What is the most challenging contaminant? If it is sub-micron particles such as viruses, viral vectors, semiconductor particles, or optical contamination, the MPPS range shifts towards 0.1 \u00b5m, and ULPA filters are effective. However, if the contaminant is dust, pollen, or larger bioaerosols, H13\/H14 is sufficient.<\/p>\n

      What are the airflow and energy requirements? If fan energy dominates operating costs, start with an H14 filter and only escalate to a ULPA filter if the application demands it.<\/p>\n

      What service and test infrastructure is available? ULPA requires scan-testing, gel-sealing, and in-situ PAO capability. Facilities without these capabilities cannot reliably maintain ULPA and are better served by HEPA.<\/p>\n

      When the answer is genuinely ‘either will work’, the default option should be H14 rather than U15. The reason is straightforward: the H14\u2013U15 transition roughly doubles the pressure drop and the filter cost, and increases the overhead of scan testing at every replacement cycle. Unless the application specifically requires sub-0.1 \u03bcm control, the optimum solution in terms of engineering and economics is almost always an H14 filter with rigorous in-situ testing and disciplined pre-filter care.<\/p>\n

      Veelgestelde vragen<\/h2>\n
        \n
      1. What does HEPA stand for?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        HEPA stands for “High Efficiency Particulate Air.” It is a performance designation, not a brand, established by the U.S. Department of Energy in the 1960s to describe filters that remove at least 99.97% of particles at 0.3 \u03bcm under the DOE test method.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Are ULPA filters better than HEPA filters?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Yes, in pure efficiency terms \u2014 ULPA filters remove 99.999% or more at the most-penetrating particle size, compared with 99.97% for HEPA per the U.S. DOE test. The “better” label is not free, however: ULPA filters have higher pressure drop, higher purchase cost, and shorter service life, so they are only justified where the application truly requires sub-micron control.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Can HEPA filters capture viruses?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Yes. Most viruses are between 0.02 and 0.3 \u03bcm in diameter, and although single-virus capture efficiency is lower than bulk efficiency, an H13 or H14 HEPA filter removes 99.95\u201399.995% of viral aerosols in practice, which is why the CDC, WHO, and ASHRAE recommend HEPA filtration for airborne infection control in healthcare settings.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. What is the most efficient HEPA filter?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              The most efficient HEPA grade under EN 1822-1:2019 is H14, with an integral efficiency of at least 99.995% and a maximum local penetration of 0.025% at the MPPS. Above H14, the filter is reclassified as ULPA (U15, U16, or U17).<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Do ULPA filters restrict airflow more than HEPA?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Yes, significantly. A typical U15 or U16 filter operates at 250\u2013350 Pa initial pressure drop compared with 120\u2013220 Pa for H13\/H14 HEPA filters, which means larger fans, more motor power, and higher operating energy to maintain the same airflow.<\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Where are ULPA filters required?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  ULPA filters are required in semiconductor fabrication (ISO Class 3\u20134 cleanrooms), pharmaceutical aseptic filling (EU GMP Grade A isolators and FDA aseptic processing Grade A), biotech and gene-therapy production, hospital compounding pharmacies operating under USP 797, and high-containment (BSL-3\/BSL-4) laboratories.<\/p>\n

                  Conclusion<\/h2>\n

                  HEPA and ULPA are not competing products on a single quality scale; they are two adjacent tiers in a graduated efficiency system, as defined by EN 1822-1:2019 and ISO 29463-1:2017. They are designed for different contamination control challenges. Treating them as interchangeable or as a simple ‘more is better’ ladder is the most common specification error in this area.<\/p>\n

                  HEPA is anchored on the U.S. DOE 99.97%@0.3 \u03bcm benchmark and has been refined into H13 and H14 grades under EN 1822-1:2019. It covers the vast majority of needs in healthcare, commercial HVAC, pharmaceutical Grade B\u2013D and residential settings, while maintaining a manageable pressure drop and total cost of ownership. ULPA, which occupies the U15, U16 and U17 classes in the same standard, provides an additional one to two orders of magnitude of protection, but is only justified where sub-micron contamination directly endangers the safety of products, processes or patients \u2014 for example, in semiconductor front-end fabrication facilities, EU GMP Grade A aseptic filling, USP 797\/800 sterile compounding and BSL-3\/4 laboratories.<\/p>\n

                  The right filter matches four variables simultaneously: cleanliness classification (ISO 14644-1 or EU GMP Grade A\u2013D), dominant contaminant size, regulatory or contractual specification, and available in-situ testing and servicing infrastructure. It is not the one with the highest efficiency number on the datasheet. When the application permits either option, the optimum solution in terms of engineering and economics is almost always H14, provided there is disciplined pre-filtration and rigorous annual in-situ testing. Only escalate to U15 or higher when regulation, customer contract, or yield economics unambiguously demand it.<\/p>\n

                  For buyers and specifiers, three RFQ requirements are non-negotiable, regardless of the class chosen: (1) the class stated explicitly on every line item in accordance with EN 1822-1:2019 or IEST-RP-CC001.6, (2) an individual filter scan test report delivered with each filter, and (3) a documented in-situ PAO\/DEHS test plan that meets ISO 14644-3 and IEST-RP-CC003. Get these three right, and the rest of the HEPA versus ULPA decision becomes a routine engineering exercise rather than a procurement risk. Get them wrong, however, and even a U17 filter can underperform a properly specified, installed, scanned, and maintained H14 filter.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                  Het Amerikaanse Ministerie van Energie definieert HEPA-filters als filters die ten minste 99,971% van deeltjes met een diameter van 0,3 \u03bcm verwijderen. In tegenstelling hieraan definieert EN 1822:2019 ULPA-filters als filters die ten minste 99,9991% van de deeltjes met de meest doordringende grootte (doorgaans 0,1\u20130,15 \u03bcm) verwijderen. ULPA-filters worden onderverdeeld in drie klassen (U15, U16 en U17), die boven de twee [\u2026] staan.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":917,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[68],"tags":[121,120,118,119],"class_list":["post-916","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-industry-news","tag-china-hepa-and-ulpa-filters","tag-difference-between-hepa-and-ulpa-filters","tag-hepa-and-ulpa-filters","tag-hepa-filters-and-ulpa-filters"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/916","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=916"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/916\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/917"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=916"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=916"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uptingclean.com\/nl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}