Lola · Period Underwear
The Lola High Waist Period Underwear
Lower concern product, fabric-only construction with no waterproofing treatment typical of PFAS use.
Lola's period underwear uses cotton-based fabrics without disclosed water-resistant or stain-resistant coatings, which are the main PFAS vectors in apparel. The brand makes no public PFAS claims.
Shop Lola on Amazon →Material
Cotton blend gusset with absorbent layers; no specialty coatings disclosed
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
Lola's period underwear uses a cotton-blend gusset paired with absorbent layers, likely polyester or polyester-cotton blends in the core. The absence of disclosed waterproofing treatments (which typically introduce PFAS) is a material advantage over brands using synthetic moisture barriers. Cotton in the gusset reduces contact dermatitis risk compared to synthetic-only constructions, though any residual dyes or finishes in the blend warrant attention during first wash.
The brand's record and disclosure
Lola has not published detailed material safety data, certifications (such as OEKO-TEX or GOTS), or formal PFAS commitment statements on their period underwear line. The brand markets toward reproductive health audiences but does not transparently disclose fabric treatments or third-party testing results. No significant recalls or regulatory actions targeting Lola period underwear have been publicly documented, though limited disclosure makes independent verification difficult.
How it compares in its category
Period underwear safety varies widely: some brands use silicone or polyurethane-based waterproofing (introducing PFAS and potential leachables), while others, like Lola, rely on fabric layering alone. Lola's cotton-forward gusset is typical of mid-market competitors but trails certified organic options (Thinx, some Knix lines) in verifiable material standards. The lack of PFAS-heavy coating is a relative advantage over fully synthetic waterproof constructions.
If you buy it
Wash in cool water before first use to remove any residual dyes or finishes. Avoid bleach and high heat drying, which can degrade elastic and accelerate synthetic fiber breakdown. Replace every 6-12 months or when absorbency noticeably declines. Inspect the gusset regularly for pilling, thinning, or odor persistence that may indicate bacterial colonization; hand-wash if needed to extend lifespan.
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.”
Formaldehyde-releasing finish resins in fabric treatments
Cotton-blend fabrics may contain formaldehyde-based resins for wrinkle resistance or dye fixation, typical of conventional textiles. Lola does not disclose treatment protocols, so presence cannot be ruled out; washing reduces residual levels but does not eliminate them entirely.
Azo dyes and colorant-derived heavy metals
Dark-colored gussets may use azo dyes, which can release aromatic amines under skin moisture and heat. No third-party testing data is available for Lola's specific dye palette; OEKO-TEX certification would rule this out but is not claimed.
Phthalates in elastic or synthetic fiber components
Waistband elastic and absorbent core polyester may contain phthalates as plasticizers. Skin contact is prolonged (worn all day) but through intact fabric; leaching is unlikely unless elastic degrades or is damaged.
Microfiber shedding and microplastic release
Polyester-blend absorbent layers shed microfibers during washing and wear. While not a direct health hazard to the wearer, this contributes to environmental microplastic pollution; impact increases with product lifespan and washing frequency.
Antimony in polyester (trace, pigment-associated)
Polyester manufacture may involve antimony as a catalyst; residual levels in finished fabric are typically far below concern thresholds and not a documented issue in period underwear products.
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 Period Underwear
JAMA Organic
LOLA Organic Cotton Period Underwear
Organic cotton with moisture-wicking gusset
Lower PFAS concern, organic cotton base with no waterproof claims, but brand doesn't explicitly address PFAS.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
JAMA Organic
Organyc Certified Organic Cotton Disposable Period Underwear for Sensitive Skin
certified organic cotton with absorbent core
Lower concern, organic cotton base suggests minimal PFAS risk, but no explicit PFAS statement limits confidence.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Ruby Love
Women's Hipster Period Underwear
organic cotton with waterproof coating
Lower concern, PFAS-free verified; buy with confidence.
✓Lab test found no PFAS
More period underwear 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.