K-numberK244033
Device nameElectric Nasal Aspirator (NASA601,NASA602,NASA603,NASA605,NASA606,NASA608,NASA610)
ApplicantShenzhen Desida Technology Co., Ltd.
Product codeBTA
Device classClass II
Decision dateMay 16, 2025
DecisionSubstantially Equivalent
Regulation878.4780
AI Summary extracted from FDA summary PDF · never regenerated
Intended use

The Electric Nasal Aspirator is a portable, battery-operated suction device with interchangeable silicone nozzle tips (conical, flat, and angled) designed for intermittent removal of nasal secretions and mucus from children aged 2-12 years in a home environment. It features a motor pump providing negative pressure (52-60 kPa), an LED display with button controls for vacuum pressure adjustment, music and light functions, and charges via USB cable.

Technological characteristics

The subject device has a higher flow rate (3.3-6.0 L/min vs. 2.5-2.7 L/min), larger battery capacity (2500 mAh vs. 700 mAh), higher power consumption (5W vs. 2W max), and slightly different dimensions and weight than the predicate. It includes two additional components: an air tube and tweezers. However, vacuum pressure range (52-60 kPa), motor type (3.7V DC), music and light functions, biocompatible materials (ABS, PC, silicone), and safety/EMC standards remain identical.

Test standards cited

Biocompatibility: ISO 10993-5 (cytotoxicity), ISO 10993-10 (skin sensitization), ISO 10993-23 (skin irritation). Electrical safety and EMC: IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-1-11. Battery safety: IEC 62133-2. Performance testing included vacuum pressure, flow rate, noise level, and tubing bending resistance verification.

Substantial equivalence argument

The devices share identical intended use, patient population, vacuum pressure range, motor type, and core functionality (music/light functions). Although the subject device has higher flow rate and battery capacity, both devices maintain the same 52-60 kPa vacuum pressure range to protect children's nasal mucosa, and performance testing confirmed equivalent safety and effectiveness. The additional components (air tube and tweezers) do not raise safety concerns—the air tube performance was validated through testing, and the tweezers are optional accessories. Both devices comply with identical safety standards and biocompatibility requirements for silicone contact materials.

Extracted by AI from the official FDA summary PDF →
Source

View the full FDA submission: accessdata.fda.gov

Researching this as a predicate?
Want a transparent AI-ranking score, AI-discovered related predicates, ongoing safety and warning-letter monitoring, full predicate chain lineage, and a drafted SE rationale — all saved to your own project? That's what an account adds.
Start free trial →

Everything you need for a 510(k) submission. Nothing you don't.

14-day free trial. No setup. Cancel anytime.

Start free trial →
Building an AI or ML-enabled device? Predicate search, PCCP tracking, and AI-specific FDA intelligence — built exclusively for AI/ML devices. Try AIFDA Intel →