Does Period Underwear Contain PFAS? What Testing Shows and Safer Period Product Swaps

Quick answer: Some period underwear contains PFAS, and a lot of it does not show the fluorine levels labs treat as intentional use. A 2025 paper in Environmental Science & Technology Letters screened 59 reusable period and hygiene products. About one-third of the period underwear and one-quarter of the reusable pads had total fluorine above 110 parts per million, the authors' mark for intentional PFAS. The American Chemical Society's summary of that study says 71% of the products lacked intentional PFAS, and that all 19 products chosen for a specific-PFAS test still contained PFAS, some of them at very low levels. A separate lab study of three menstrual garments and one organic-cotton control found at least one extractable PFAS in every layer, up to 1.69 nanograms per gram. None of these studies measured how much PFAS, if any, passes through skin. If you want a lower-fluorine option of the kind Wirecutter's 2023 test flagged, a medical-grade silicone cup or disc is the category that came back lowest. Read the listing. "PFOA-free" is not "PFAS-free."

Below is what those tests measured, what Thinx says on its own safety page, which state sale rules this guide could confirm, and three Amazon listings for a cup, a disc, and organic-cotton tampons. PTFE floss is a different product, covered in the dental floss guide.

Does period underwear contain PFAS?

Some of the pairs labs have tested do. Many do not, at least not at the fluorine level those labs called intentional.

Two kinds of tests get bundled together in headlines. A total-fluorine screen, often by particle-induced gamma-ray emission (PIGE) spectroscopy, measures fluorine. It does not name the chemical. Labs use a high reading as a sign that PFAS were added on purpose, and a low reading as a sign of contamination from packaging, processing, or the environment. A targeted test looks for a list of specific PFAS and reports those chemicals by name, usually in nanograms per gram. A high fluorine reading and a nanogram of a named PFAS are not the same result.

The 2025 reusable-product paper, Wirecutter's 2023 screen, and a 2025 extraction study of four garments each answer a piece of the question. None of them is a test of the pair in a store this week. The extraction study says its samples were bought in February 2023 and that formulations may have changed.

What did the 2025 reusable-product study find?

The paper is Wicks, Brady, Whitehead, Hedman, Zachritz, Venier, and Peaslee, "Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Reusable Feminine Hygiene Products," published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. The American Chemical Society's August 11, 2025 press release describes the same study. Graham Peaslee is the corresponding author. Alyssa Wicks is the lead author.

The team screened 59 reusable products across five categories with PIGE total-fluorine testing. The categories were period underwear, reusable pads, menstrual cups, reusable incontinence underwear, and a reusable incontinence pad. Products came from North America, South America, and Europe. The authors counted intentional PFAS use as total fluorine above 110 ppm. Period underwear hit that mark in 33% of the pairs. Reusable pads hit it in 25%. Those were the highest rates. Each region had at least one item at a level consistent with intentional fluorination. At least one product in each category did not.

The ACS summary uses the same split in round numbers: one-third of the period underwear and one-quarter of the reusable pads. It adds two fluorine figures the press release attributes to the study. One-quarter of the period underwear contained at least 1,000 ppm of fluorine. The highest reached 77,000 ppm. ACS also says most products, 71%, lacked intentional PFAS, at least one from each category.

The team then chose 19 products, spanning the three regions, for a targeted analysis of 31 ionic PFAS and 11 neutral PFAS, 42 compounds. PFAS were detected in all 19. The most abundant were 6:2 and 8:2 fluorotelomer alcohols. ACS says several of those detections were at very low concentrations and were assumed to be unintentional. A fluorine screen of 59 products and a named-chemical test of 19 products are two results. A product can lack "intentional" fluorine and still have a detectable PFAS in the targeted test. The 19 are a subset, not a certificate for the other 40.

The authors did not treat PFAS as necessary for the products to work. The abstract says the fact that at least one product in each category lacked intentional fluorine "indicates that PFAS use is unnecessary in all these reusable products." ACS quotes Peaslee: "it appears the use of PFAS is entirely unnecessary." ACS also says the New York Times Wirecutter provided product samples, and that funding came from an Indiana University Sustainability Research Development Grant. That sample note is why this paper and Wirecutter's earlier article share a lab. They are still different reports, with different counts and different fluorine cutoffs. Wirecutter's article is below.

The abstract's last sentence is the limit on health. "The results of this small initial survey, together with limited knowledge of the dermal absorption of PFAS, suggest more comprehensive PFAS exposure studies are needed." The paper is a product survey. It is not a measurement of PFAS in wearers' blood.

What did the menstrual-underwear extraction study measure?

A second paper looks only at named, extractable PFAS, in nanograms per gram, not at total fluorine. Samantha Good and Joseph A. Charbonnet, at Iowa State University, published "Extractable Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Menstrual Underwear" in Environmental Engineering Science (2025;42(3):137–140). The open copy this guide used is the authors' file in the Iowa State repository. Samples were acquired in February 2023. The paper says product formulations may have changed since then. The garments are labeled A through D. The paper does not name the brands.

They measured 41 target PFAS in methanol extracts of three menstrual underwear garments and one nonmenstrual organic-cotton underwear used as a control. Garments A and D were the same brand, bought together in a store. B and C were bought online. Twenty PFAS were detected above the limit of quantitation in at least one layer. Every layer of every garment, including the organic-cotton control, contained at least one target PFAS. Summed concentrations ran from 0.01 to 1.69 nanograms of PFAS per gram of fabric.

Table 1 in the paper reports the sum for each layer, in ng/g. The number in parentheses is how many PFAS were quantified in that layer. A dash means that layer was not in the garment.

Layer	A, menstrual	B, menstrual	C, menstrual	D, organic cotton
Outer crotch	1.69 (11)	0.99 (6)	0.03 (2)	0.01 (1)
Liner	0.82 (2)	0.46 (1)	0.01 (1)	—
Adsorptive pad	—	0.19 (2)	—	—
Terry cloth	—	0.01 (1)	0.30 (1)	—
Inner gusset	0.62 (3)	0.72 (6)	0.09 (1)	0.06 (2)

The highest total, 1.69 ng/g, was the outer crotch of garment A. The authors say outer crotch layers, which contact the skin, had the highest totals, and that the inner gusset, worn against the genitals, also contained PFAS, "suggesting a potential exposure route." The organic-cotton control had the lowest sum in each layer that both garments had. The authors write that this pattern suggests the menstrual garments' monomer concentrations "may be consistent with intentional PFAS addition." That is their comparison with the control. It is not a total-fluorine result, and 1.69 ng/g is not the 110 ppm cutoff in the 2025 reusable-product paper. Nanograms per gram and parts per million of fluorine are different measurements.

Fluorotelomers were the subclass detected most often, with 14 detections across the garments. No single PFAS dominated. The paper also says laundering can send these chemicals into domestic wastewater. It does not report a blood level, a skin-absorption percentage, or a disease outcome.

One shopping point falls out of the control column. Organic cotton was the lowest garment in this set. It was not a garment with zero PFAS. "Organic cotton" describes the fiber. It is not, by itself, a PFAS test.

What did Wirecutter's test of 44 products find?

Wirecutter's article, "We Had 44 Period and Incontinence Products Tested for Forever Chemicals," was published August 10, 2023. Wirecutter bought 44 products, including period underwear, tampons, menstrual cups, pads, and incontinence products, and sent them to Graham Peaslee's lab at the University of Notre Dame. Alyssa Wicks ran the fluorine tests, more than 200 measurements, because each product was sampled in more than one place. A tampon could include the cotton, the string, the applicator, and the wrapper. Period underwear included the lining and other parts of the garment.

Peaslee's lab, for this project, treated fluorine over 50 ppm as unintentional contamination and fluorine over 300 ppm as intentional contamination. Those cutoffs are not the 110 ppm cutoff in the 2025 paper. Do not slide a number from one study onto the other.

Wirecutter's results, in its own words:

• Nearly half of the 44 products showed fluorine levels suggesting unintentional PFAS. Eight products were high enough to suggest PFAS-treated material had been added.
• Two of the 10 period underwear pairs suggested PFAS had been added during manufacturing. Two of the other eight suggested unintentional contamination. The unintentional group included brands that had published documents certifying the products were free of these substances.
• The four medical-grade silicone menstrual cups all showed very low levels of suspected PFAS.
• All five tampons showed very low levels. The applicator from one of them suggested unintentional contamination.
• The Thinx pair Wirecutter sent was among the lowest of the 10 underwear pairs. No fluorine test on it registered above 26 ppm.
• A different pair, from a company that told Wirecutter its underwear was free of PFOA and PFOS, had the highest single sample in the set: 23,864 ppm fluorine.
• Another pair, from a company that markets its products as "PFAS-free," measured 3,326 ppm and 8,635 ppm in two of five samples.

Wirecutter's conclusion from that spread is to be skeptical of claims that period underwear and similar products are PFAS-free. It says people who want to lower potential PFAS exposure during a period may consider medical-grade silicone cups or discs. It also says individual results from one pair are not enough to rank products by toxicity, and that the results are far from definitive. Wirecutter did not specially protect the products from contamination before mailing them. It sent one sample of each product, so it could not account for differences between production lots. The article does not name the cup brands or the underwear brands other than Thinx.

The same article is the public record of the Thinx settlement details used here. Peaslee's lab had earlier found PFAS in a Thinx pair sent in by a Sierra Club magazine contributor in 2019. Wirecutter writes that Thinx later agreed to pay up to $5 million in a class-action settlement. The plaintiffs alleged that marketing the underwear as "free of harmful chemicals" was misleading, and they cited PFAS findings. At the time of the settlement, Thinx denied that PFAS were intentionally included. Thinx told Wirecutter, in an email for that article: "PFAS are not part of our product design, and we take rigorous steps to ensure suppliers don't add PFAS to our products."

Does wearing the product mean PFAS enters the body?

These studies do not establish that. They measured fluorine or named PFAS in products. They did not measure PFAS in the blood of people who wore those products, and they did not measure a health outcome.

The 2025 paper says knowledge of dermal absorption is limited and asks for more exposure studies. The ACS press release uses more cautious-sounding language on the same point and then points outward. It says the chemicals "might be absorbed into the body through skin contact," and that other studies have shown skin contact may allow PFAS to be absorbed. The Good and Charbonnet paper calls genital contact with the inner gusset a "potential exposure route." Potential is the word those authors use. A potential route is not a measured dose.

Wirecutter quotes an OB/GYN, Marya Zlatnik, on the practical side of that gap. She said she would try not to buy a product that had PFAS in it, and that she still had Thinx she had not thrown out, because intermittent exposure was not her largest concern. That is one clinician's judgment, reported by Wirecutter. It is not a safety limit.

Washing is the step Wirecutter offers for people who keep using reusable absorbent underwear or pads. The article says research has shown that washing treated garments before first use may reduce direct bodily exposure by sending the substances into wastewater instead. The Iowa State paper's matching point is that laundering can contribute PFAS to domestic wastewater. A wash may move the chemical off the fabric and into the water. It does not make the chemical disappear.

What does Thinx say about its own testing?

Thinx's product-safety page is the company's account, not an independent lab report reprinted here. The page says PFAS "are absolutely not part of our product design," that Thinx does not treat finished products with PFAS, and that the company takes measures so the substances are not added through materials, design, production, facilities, or suppliers. It says raw-material suppliers are OEKO-TEX certified and attest that Thinx is not treated with PFAS.

On testing, the page says Thinx uses third-party accredited labs for individual PFAS compounds, fluorine, and total PFAS, including organic fluorine and total fluorine, and that the products pass those tests. It says all underwear in the Thinx family of brands has been certified to STANDARD 100 by OEKO-TEX, certificate 20.HUS.04850, Hohenstein, since 2020, and that it now complies with OEKO-TEX Standard 100, Class II, Annexure IV, including REACH requirements under that same certificate number. The page says suppliers sign a code of conduct and a chemical-supplier agreement aligned with the AFIRM restricted-substance list, including AFIRM's PFAS restrictions.

Read that as the company's claim. Wirecutter's single Thinx pair was low in fluorine, under 26 ppm, and the company denied intentional use when it settled. Wirecutter also found a different brand's "PFAS-free" pair with thousands of ppm of fluorine. A company page and one pair tested in 2023 are not a standing certificate for every style on sale now. This guide does not link a Thinx product, and it does not call Thinx PFAS-free.

Which state rules cover PFAS in menstrual products?

Several states restrict sale of menstrual products with intentionally added PFAS. The rules below are the ones this guide checked against the statute or the bill that enacted it. They are state sale restrictions. They are not a federal recall, and they do not govern stores in other states. A statute is also not a lab result for a package in your hand.

California menstrual products. Assembly Bill 2515 was signed on September 30, 2024, as Chapter 1008 of the Statutes of 2024. It is Health and Safety Code sections 25258 through 25258.3. A menstrual product includes tampons, pads, sponges, menstruation underwear, disks, and menstrual cups, disposable or reusable. Section 25258.3 says a person shall not manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in the state a menstrual product that contains regulated PFAS. "Regulated PFAS" means, commencing January 1, 2025, PFAS a manufacturer has intentionally added for a functional or technical effect, including intentional breakdown products that also have that effect. Commencing January 1, 2027, it also means PFAS at or above a limit the Department of Toxic Substances Control determines, measured as total organic fluorine. The statute sets the date for that second limit. It does not set the parts-per-million number. The department's implementing regulations are due on or before January 1, 2029.

An earlier bill, AB 246, would have restricted PFAS in menstrual products on a different schedule, including a 10 ppm total-organic-fluorine threshold. Governor Newsom vetoed it on October 8, 2023. The veto message said the bill did not assign a regulatory agency to determine compliance. AB 246 is not the law. AB 2515 is.

California textile articles. AB 1817 is a separate chapter, Health and Safety Code sections 108970 and 108971. Beginning January 1, 2025, no person shall manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in the state any new, not previously used, textile article that contains regulated PFAS. Apparel is defined to include undergarments. Regulated PFAS means intentionally added PFAS with a functional or technical effect, or total organic fluorine at or above 100 ppm beginning January 1, 2025, and at or above 50 ppm beginning January 1, 2027. The chapter's definition of "textile" excludes single-use absorbent hygiene products. A reusable period underwear pair is an undergarment. A disposable pad or tampon is the kind of single-use absorbent product that definition sets aside. Outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions has its own later date and a "Made with PFAS chemicals" disclosure. That outdoor exception is not a period-underwear exception.

Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes section 116.943, subdivision 5, says that beginning January 1, 2025, a person may not sell, offer for sale, or distribute for sale in the state a listed product if it contains intentionally added PFAS. Menstruation products are item 8 on that list. The statute defines "intentionally added" as PFAS deliberately added during manufacture where the continued presence of PFAS is desired in the finished product, or in a component, to perform a function. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's page on the 2025 prohibitions says that, for this law, menstruation products are products used to catch menstrual flow, such as disposable and reusable pads, tampons, period underwear, and menstrual cups. The same statute's dental-floss item is covered in the floss guide.

Colorado. Senate Bill 24-081 added section 25-15-604(3.5) of the Colorado Revised Statutes. On and after January 1, 2026, a person shall not sell, offer for sale, distribute for sale, or distribute for use in the state listed products that contain intentionally added PFAS chemicals. Menstruation products are one of those products, alongside cleaning products, cookware, dental floss, and ski wax. This guide is dated after that effective date.

Vermont. Title 9, section 2494b, effective January 1, 2026, says a manufacturer shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, distribute for sale, or distribute for use in the state any menstrual product to which PFAS has been intentionally added in any amount. Section 2494a defines a menstrual product to include tampons, pads, sponges, menstruation underwear, disks, applicators, and menstrual cups, disposable or reusable. The same section has an exception for a technically unavoidable trace quantity caused by impurities of natural or synthetic ingredients, the manufacturing process, storage, or migration from packaging, when the product was made through processes intended to comply. The prohibition is on intentional addition. The exception is about trace impurities. PFAS is one entry on a longer list of chemicals in that statute. This guide is only summarizing the PFAS provision.

How do you pick a lower-PFAS period product?

Use the words on the listing, and match them to the kind of product the tests actually separated.

Look for "PFAS-free," and do not stop at "PFOA-free." PFOA is one chemical. Wirecutter bought a pair from a company that said the underwear was free of PFOA and PFOS. That pair had the highest fluorine reading in the 44-product set, 23,864 ppm. A "PFAS-free" line can also be wrong. Another brand in that set used those words and still measured thousands of ppm in two samples. The useful version of the claim is a current third-party test the maker publishes, not a slogan about one member of the family. Thinx's safety page is an example of a company posting its own testing claims and an OEKO-TEX certificate number. Treat it as that company's statement.

A medical-grade silicone cup or disc was the lower-fluorine category in Wirecutter's screen. All four cups in that test showed very low suspected PFAS. Wirecutter suggests cups or discs for someone trying to lower exposure from leak-proof fabric. The cup and the disc linked below are listings that say medical-grade silicone. Wirecutter did not name the four cups, so this guide does not claim these two were in that test, and it does not claim either listing is PFAS-free.

Organic cotton is a fiber claim. Wirecutter's five tampons showed very low suspected PFAS, and one applicator did not. The Iowa State control, an organic-cotton nonmenstrual underwear garment, still had detectable PFAS in every layer, at the lowest totals in that study. Prefer a tampon or pad listing that says what the fiber is. Do not read "organic" as a PFAS result.

If you stay with period underwear, wash it before you wear it. That is Wirecutter's suggestion for reusable absorbent products, with the wastewater tradeoff the Iowa State paper describes.

Period product options compared

Option	What the listing says	Reason to look at it	What it does not say
DIVA Cup Model 1	The Amazon title calls it a 100% medical grade silicone reusable menstrual cup. A bullet says it is made from 100% medical grade silicone and is plastic free and dye free.	A cup in the material category Wirecutter's four cups scored lowest for suspected PFAS	It does not say PFAS-free. This guide does not have a fluorine test of this model.
Flex Reusable Disc	The bullet says the disc is made with medical-grade silicone and made without BPA, phthalates, or natural rubber latex. The ingredients line says the reusable disc is 100% medical-grade silicone.	A disc in the same silicone category Wirecutter suggested	It does not say PFAS-free. The package also includes disposable discs. Those are a polymer blend, not the silicone disc.
Cora organic cotton tampons, 72 regular	The bullets say the tampons are 100% organic cotton, made without pesticides, dioxins, rayon, or chlorine, and free of fragrance and dyes. The applicator is described as BPA-free plastic.	A disposable option whose listing names the fiber. Wirecutter's five tampons, brands unnamed, were very low for suspected PFAS	It does not say PFAS-free. The Amazon page displays an OEKO-TEX STANDARD 100 certification number, 25.HUS.61552. That display is not a PFAS result for this box.
Period underwear with a published third-party test	No Amazon pair is linked here. Thinx's safety page says the company tests for PFAS and fluorine at third-party labs and posts OEKO-TEX certificate 20.HUS.04850.	When you want reusable underwear and the maker shows a current test, not only a "PFOA-free" line	A company page is the company's claim. Wirecutter's "PFAS-free" counterexample shows why the test matters.

The cup

The DIVA Cup Model 1 listing, ASIN B000FAG6X0, is a reusable cup. The title says 100% medical grade silicone. The bullet says it is made from 100% medical grade silicone, plastic free and dye free, and describes up to 12 hours of wear. Those are the listing's words. They do not include PFAS. Silicone is the material category Wirecutter's cup results pointed to. This listing is not identified as one of the four cups in that test.

The disc

The Flex Reusable Disc, ASIN B00LWE69NU, is sold by The Flex Company. The bullet says it is made with medical-grade silicone and made without BPA, phthalates, or natural rubber latex. The ingredients line separates two products in the package: the reusable disc is 100% medical-grade silicone, and the disposable discs are a medical-grade polymer blend with mineral oil and small amounts of other ingredients. The silicone sentence applies to the reusable disc. The listing does not say PFAS-free.

The tampons

The Cora 72-count regular tampons, ASIN B06XKF4RMW, are sold by Cora Women. The bullets say they are 100% organic cotton tampons, made without pesticides, dioxins, rayon, or chlorine, and free of fragrance and dyes, with a BPA-free compact plastic applicator. The Amazon page also displays an OEKO-TEX STANDARD 100 certification, number 25.HUS.61552, and describes that standard as testing textile components against a list of chemicals. The page does not say the tampons are PFAS-free. Wirecutter's tampon findings were very low for the five it tested, with one applicator suggesting unintentional fluorine. This guide does not claim this applicator was that one.

1. Treat a total-fluorine "intentional" reading and a nanogram-per-gram extraction as different tests.
2. Do not read "PFOA-free" or "organic" as "PFAS-free."
3. For a lower-fluorine category in the 2023 Wirecutter screen, start with a medical-grade silicone cup or disc whose listing says that.
4. If you want period underwear, prefer a brand that publishes a current third-party PFAS test, and wash before first use.
5. State bans on intentionally added PFAS apply in those states. They are not a test of the package you are holding.

Frequently asked questions

Did every period underwear in the 2025 study contain intentional PFAS?

No. The paper reports intentional PFAS use, defined as total fluorine above 110 ppm, in 33% of the period underwear and 25% of the reusable pads. The ACS summary says 71% of the products lacked intentional PFAS, including at least one product in each category. The targeted test is a different result: all 19 products chosen for named-PFAS analysis contained PFAS, some at very low levels the ACS summary treats as unintentional.

Is 1.69 nanograms per gram the same kind of number as 110 ppm?

No. Good and Charbonnet reported extractable target PFAS in nanograms per gram of fabric. The highest sum in their table is 1.69 ng/g. Wicks and colleagues used total fluorine in parts per million, and they treated a reading above 110 ppm as intentional PFAS use. Wirecutter's 2023 screen used still other cutoffs, above 50 ppm for unintentional and above 300 ppm for intentional. A number from one method does not convert into the other.

Did these studies show that wearing period underwear raises PFAS in blood?

No. The 2025 paper says knowledge of dermal absorption is limited and that more exposure studies are needed. The Iowa State paper calls contact with the gusset a potential exposure route. Wirecutter says its fluorine results are not enough to rate products for toxicity. None of the three reports is a blood study of wearers.

Were menstrual cups high in fluorine in Wirecutter's test?

The four medical-grade silicone cups Wirecutter sent all showed very low levels of suspected PFAS. That was a category result for those four cups. The article does not name them. The DIVA Cup and Flex disc listings in this guide say medical-grade silicone. This guide does not claim those listings were part of the test.

Does the Thinx settlement mean the company admitted the underwear was made with PFAS?

Wirecutter says Thinx agreed to pay up to $5 million and, at the time of the settlement, denied that PFAS were intentionally included. The company's email to Wirecutter said PFAS are not part of the product design. The company's safety page says the same thing and says finished products are tested for PFAS and fluorine. Those are the company's statements and Wirecutter's account of the settlement. They are not a finding that every current pair is free of PFAS.

Does "PFOA-free" on period underwear mean it is PFAS-free?

No. In Wirecutter's set, the highest single fluorine reading, 23,864 ppm, came from a pair sold by a company that said its underwear was free of PFOA and PFOS. PFOA and PFOS are two chemicals. PFAS is the family. A separate pair marketed as "PFAS-free" still measured 3,326 ppm and 8,635 ppm in two samples. Ask for the words PFAS, and for a published test.

Does organic cotton mean a period product has no PFAS?

Not by itself. In the Iowa State study, the organic-cotton control had the lowest PFAS sum of the four garments, and every layer of that control still had at least one target PFAS. The Cora listing says the tampons are 100% organic cotton. It does not say PFAS-free.

Do the California, Minnesota, Colorado, and Vermont rules apply in every state?

No. Each statute restricts manufacture or sale in that state. California's menstrual-product rule is Health and Safety Code section 25258.3, in effect for intentionally added PFAS since January 1, 2025. Minnesota's menstruation-product prohibition in section 116.943 began the same day. Colorado's menstruation-product prohibition in section 25-15-604(3.5) and Vermont's menstrual-product prohibition in 9 V.S.A. section 2494b both began January 1, 2026. None of them is a recall of a product you already own.

Does the DIVA Cup listing say the cup is PFAS-free?

No. The listing for ASIN B000FAG6X0 says the Model 1 cup is 100% medical grade silicone and describes it as plastic free and dye free. It does not say PFAS-free. The Flex disc listing says medical-grade silicone and does not say PFAS-free either.

Bottom line

Period underwear is one of the reusable products where testing has found intentional-level fluorine, and it is also a category where most tested items in the 2025 screen fell below that mark. Named PFAS still turned up at trace levels in every layer of a four-garment extraction, including an organic-cotton control. Skin absorption from wearing these products is not established by these studies. The practical swaps that match the testing are a medical-grade silicone cup or disc, a tampon or pad whose listing names the fiber, and period underwear from a brand that publishes a current third-party PFAS test. Read "PFAS," not only "PFOA." Other household swaps are in the non-toxic products directory.

Want new guides like this in your inbox? Sign up for the newsletter.

Sources

• Wicks A, Brady S, Whitehead HD, Hedman T, Zachritz A, Venier M, Peaslee GF. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Reusable Feminine Hygiene Products. Environmental Science & Technology Letters. 2025;12(8):924–929. DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00553
• American Chemical Society, Research Update: PFAS found in several reusable period products (August 11, 2025)
• Good S, Charbonnet JA. Extractable Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Menstrual Underwear. Environmental Engineering Science. 2025;42(3):137–140. DOI: 10.1089/ees.2024.0270. Open copy: Iowa State University repository
• Wirecutter, We Had 44 Period and Incontinence Products Tested for Forever Chemicals (August 10, 2023)
• Thinx, Product Safety Standards
• California Health and Safety Code section 25258 and section 25258.3 (AB 2515, Chapter 1008, Statutes of 2024)
• California Assembly Bill 246, veto message (October 8, 2023)
• California Health and Safety Code section 108970 and section 108971 (AB 1817)
• Minnesota Statutes section 116.943
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2025 PFAS prohibitions
• Colorado General Assembly, SB24-081, adding Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-604(3.5); signed act (PDF)
• Vermont Statutes 9 V.S.A. § 2494a and § 2494b (effective January 1, 2026); Act 131 as enacted, PDF

For educational purposes only, not medical advice. Product descriptions reflect the manufacturer's Amazon listing, or the company page cited above, at the time of writing.

Product links in this post may be affiliate links. Compensation may be received for qualifying purchases.