Lilith · Tampons
Lil-Lets Cardboard Applicator Super Tampons X 144
Lower-concern option; cardboard and rayon are traditional materials unlikely to contain PFAS, but brand offers no transparency.
Lil-Lets cardboard applicators use natural materials (cardboard tube, rayon tampon body) that fall outside typical PFAS application domains. No public evidence of PFAS treatment in period-care tampons exists. However, the brand provides no formal PFAS disclosure or third-party verification, leaving supply-chain specifics opaque.
Shop Lilith on Amazon →Material
Cardboard applicator; rayon/viscose tampon
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Category baseline
period care is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
Safe base material
Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Lil-Lets Super tampons use a cardboard applicator and rayon/viscose absorbent core, both traditional tampon materials with established safety profiles in regulated markets. Cardboard applicators do not leach chemicals into the body and degrade naturally post-use. Rayon/viscose is a regenerated cellulose fiber approved by the FDA for menstrual products; it has no known association with hormonal disruption or heavy metal accumulation at typical exposure levels.
The brand's record and disclosure
Lilith (Lil-Lets parent company) does not publicly disclose chemical testing, material sourcing certifications, or PFAS manufacturing controls, which is typical for most tampon brands. The company has no known product recalls, contamination incidents, or regulatory warnings on file. No independent testing of this specific product line for heavy metals, pesticide residues, or volatile compounds has been published in accessible literature.
How it compares in its category
Cardboard applicators are less frequently marketed than plastic but are chemically safer than plastic applicators (which risk BPA leachate in rare cases). Rayon-core tampons are the category standard and compete equally with cotton-blend or all-cotton alternatives on safety; rayon is not inherently riskier. Lil-Lets does not claim organic, unbleached, or fragrance-free variants, so users sensitive to residual dioxins from bleaching or fragrance additives may prefer specialty brands; no elevated risk is documented for standard variants.
If you buy it
Change tampons every 4 to 8 hours to reduce toxic shock syndrome (TSS) risk, regardless of absorbency rating; Super size increases duration but does not eliminate risk. Store in a cool, dry place; cardboard applicators are less moisture-sensitive than plastic but will degrade if exposed to prolonged humidity. Discard applicators in trash, not sewers, as they do not break down in water systems. If you experience unusual odor, irritation, or symptoms during use, switch products and consult a healthcare provider.
Beyond PFAS: other things we checked
Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”
Dioxin residue from bleaching
Rayon production includes a bleaching step; trace dioxins may remain in the final fiber. Regulatory limits are in place, but non-organic rayon is not certified dioxin-free. No specific testing of Lil-Lets has been published.
Pesticide residue on raw rayon feedstock
Rayon is a synthetic fiber derived from wood pulp, not cotton, so pesticide contamination is unlikely unless feedstock sourcing is documented as non-certified. Lilith does not disclose rayon sourcing details.
Fragrance allergen or irritant in tampon or applicator
Lil-Lets Super variant does not list fragrance as an ingredient. Cardboard applicators are fragrance-free by default. Unscented rayon tampons carry minimal contact dermatitis risk compared to scented variants.
Toxic shock syndrome (TSS) from prolonged wear
Super absorbency increases retention time, which is a known TSS risk factor. Risk is behavioral, not material, but users must follow change protocols strictly.
Cardboard applicator splinters or degradation during insertion
Cardboard applicators are less rigid than plastic and may show surface softening in damp conditions, but structural failure during use is not documented. Material integrity depends on storage and manufacturing quality control.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.
No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.
The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.
Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.
Safer alternatives in Tampons
Seventh Generation
Organic Cotton Tampons Applicator
organic cotton (tampon & applicator core); cardboard applicator
Lower-concern buy, organic cotton & MADE SAFE cert reduce PFAS risk, though brand is silent on the topic.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Lola
Organic Cotton Tampons
organic cotton (no synthetic coatings)
Lower concern, uncoated organic cotton with transparent PFAS-free positioning and third-party certification.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Cora
Organic Tampons with Applicator
organic cotton tampon with cardboard/plastic applicator
Lower-concern choice; organic base material and MADE SAFE cert suggest thoughtful sourcing, but no explicit PFAS commitment.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
More tampons grades
How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.