PFAS in Tampons and Period Products: What to Know

Over the past several years, independent testing has raised questions about whether "forever chemicals" — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — are present in tampons, pads, period underwear, and menstrual cups. Because these products are used internally or against sensitive tissue for cumulative hours over decades of a person's life, even trace-level findings have prompted concern among consumers and researchers alike. Based on available materials and data, this article summarizes what's been found, which brands have been named in testing or reporting, and what a cautious consumer can reasonably do while the science develops.

What Exactly Is the Concern With PFAS in Period Products?

PFAS are a class of thousands of synthetic chemicals prized for their water-, oil-, and stain-resistant properties. In period products, they may enter through several routes: fluoropolymer-treated fibers used for leak resistance, packaging materials, dyes, or even as unintentional contamination from agricultural inputs used to grow cotton. Some organic cotton and synthetic blends have tested positive for fluorine — a marker chemists use as an indicator of possible PFAS presence — even when manufacturers did not intentionally add these chemicals.

Why Does This Matter More for Menstrual Products Than Other Textiles?

Vaginal and vulvar tissue is thin, highly vascularized, and capable of absorbing compounds more readily than skin elsewhere on the body. Researchers have hypothesized that this could make any embedded PFAS more bioavailable than similar exposure through, say, a jacket or carpet. However, it's important to be precise: to date, no peer-reviewed study has directly measured PFAS migration from a tampon or pad into the human body under real-world conditions. The concern is largely rooted in the chemistry of the materials tested, not in confirmed absorption or clinical harm.

Which Brands or Products Have Been Named in Testing?

A widely cited 2023 study led by researchers at the University of Notre Dame and Mamavation tested a range of period products — including tampons, pads, and period underwear — for total fluorine content, a proxy for PFAS. Some samples returned detectable fluorine levels, prompting follow-up scrutiny of specific product lines.

Brands and product types that have appeared in independent testing reports or media coverage include:

• Always (Procter & Gamble) — certain pad lines flagged in third-party fluorine screening
• Kotex (Kimberly-Clark) — some tampon and pad variants tested by independent labs
• Store-brand and private-label pads from major retailers, in some testing rounds
• Period underwear brands, including some that use PFAS-based "leak-proof" laminates specifically for moisture resistance — this has been the most consistently flagged category, since fluoropolymer coatings are a known industry technique for waterproofing fabric

It's critical to note the difference between brand-stated claims and third-party verified results. Many companies, including P&G and Kimberly-Clark, have stated publicly that they do not intentionally add PFAS to their products and that their items meet applicable safety regulations. Independent lab findings of fluorine do not necessarily mean a brand added PFAS deliberately — contamination can occur through raw materials or manufacturing inputs. Because testing methodologies, sample sizes, and detection thresholds vary between studies, results should be treated as indicative rather than definitive. For a broader look at how we evaluate these claims, see our methodology page.

What About Tampons Specifically?

A 2024 University of California, Berkeley study tested 14 tampon brands for PFAS and detected the chemicals in most samples, though at generally low concentrations, and found no clear pattern linking organic versus non-organic cotton to higher or lower levels. The study did not identify brand names publicly, which has limited consumers' ability to make direct comparisons — a frequent criticism of this research area.

How Serious Is the Health Risk, Honestly?

This is the section where nuance matters most. Based on available materials and data, here is a fair summary:

• PFAS exposure in general has been associated with certain health outcomes, including altered thyroid function, immune response changes, and some cancers — but association is not causation, and these findings come from broader population exposure studies (drinking water, food packaging), not specifically from menstrual product use.
• No study to date has established that PFAS in tampons or pads causes any specific health outcome in humans.
• Detected fluorine levels in most tested period products have been low, and total fluorine testing does not confirm which specific PFAS compounds are present or whether they migrate out of the product during use.
• The routes and extent of absorption through vaginal or vulvar tissue from short-duration product contact remain understudied.

In short: current evidence suggests a possible, plausible concern worth monitoring — not a confirmed, quantified danger. Regulatory bodies, including the FDA, have stated they are reviewing available data but have not issued recalls or bans related to PFAS in menstrual products as of this writing.

What Should You Do or Buy Instead?

Given the uncertainty, a precautionary approach appeals to many consumers without requiring panic. Some practical, evidence-informed options:

• Look for brands that publish third-party lab testing results (not just internal assurances) confirming no detectable PFAS.
• Consider menstrual cups or discs made from medical-grade silicone, which have generally shown no evidence of PFAS in the limited testing conducted so far.
• Be cautious with "leak-proof" period underwear marketed with heavy-duty waterproofing, as fluoropolymer laminates are a common industry technique for that specific function.
• Use our product finder tool to compare period products by testing status and third-party verification history.

Are Regulators Doing Anything About This?

Some U.S. states have introduced or passed legislation requiring ingredient disclosure on menstrual product packaging, partly in response to PFAS concerns. The FDA regulates tampons as medical devices and has stated it monitors emerging research, but as of now there is no federal requirement specifically mandating PFAS testing or disclosure for period products.

Bottom Line

Independent testing has found detectable fluorine — a possible marker of PFAS — in some tampons, pads, and especially leak-proof period underwear, but findings vary by study and brand, and total fluorine detection doesn't confirm specific compounds or health effects. Based on available materials and data, the risk should be characterized as a plausible, low-to-moderate concern rather than a confirmed hazard, since no study has yet demonstrated that PFAS from these products causes harm in real-world use. Consumers who want to reduce potential exposure can favor silicone cups, seek third-party verified low-PFAS products, and treat "organic" or "natural" labeling with appropriate skepticism. This remains an evolving area of research, and our finder tool is updated as new testing data becomes available.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do organic tampons have less PFAS than regular ones?

Not necessarily. At least one major study found no consistent difference in fluorine levels between organic and non-organic cotton tampons, suggesting contamination sources may be unrelated to farming method alone.

Is it dangerous to keep using my current period products while this research develops?

Based on available data, there is no confirmed evidence that typical use of tested period products causes measurable harm. Any decision to switch products is a personal risk-tolerance choice rather than a response to an established danger.

Can I test my own period products for PFAS at home?

No reliable at-home test currently exists for consumers to detect PFAS in textiles. Testing requires specialized lab equipment (like combustion ion chromatography), which is why third-party lab verification, rather than DIY testing, is the more trustworthy path for now.