Puma · Golf Balls & Golf Gloves
Puma Puma Golf Gloves Women's Alpha Grip Gloves
Golf gloves likely have water-resistant coating; PFAS risk unclear without disclosure.
Golf gloves typically feature water-repellent coating or grip treatments that may contain PFAS. Puma provides no public information about PFAS use or avoidance in this product.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
synthetic leather / microfiber with grip coating
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.
Category baseline
clothing is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Puma Golf Gloves Alpha Grip uses synthetic leather (polyurethane or PU microfiber blend) bonded to a grip coating, typically silicone or rubber-based. Synthetic leather avoids heavy-metal tanning agents common in chrome-tanned leather, but the adhesives and surface treatments introduce chemical exposure during manufacturing and wear. The grip coating is the primary concern: water-resistant finishes on golf gloves often rely on fluorocarbon compounds (PFAS) or other hydrophobic treatments, which Puma has not publicly disclosed for this model.
The brand's record and disclosure
Puma has not made public commitments to PFAS-free manufacturing or disclosed water-resistance chemistry for its golf glove line. The brand does maintain general sustainability communications but lacks third-party certifications (OEKO-TEX, GOTS, Bluesign) for apparel products that would independently verify chemical restrictions. No significant recalls or health controversies have been documented for Puma golf gloves specifically, but the brand's silence on coating composition is a transparency gap.
How it compares in its category
Golf gloves occupy a niche with minimal regulatory oversight compared to base apparel. Puma's synthetic-leather approach is industry standard and generally safer than leather alternatives that may contain chromium or other tanning residues. Competitors like Titleist and FootJoy similarly do not disclose grip-coating chemistry publicly; few brands have committed to PFAS-free sports gloves. This product falls into the typical mid-range transparency tier for performance athletic wear.
If you buy it
Wash gloves in cool water with mild detergent before first use to reduce residual dyes and finishes. Avoid prolonged heat exposure (direct sunlight storage, washing machines above 30°C) as synthetic leather and coatings may degrade and shed microparticles. Replace when grip coating visibly wears (typically 1-2 seasons of regular play) rather than continuing use on degraded material. Store in dry conditions to prevent mold and bacterial growth, which is more likely in damp synthetic textiles.
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.”
Water-resistant coating composition (fluorocarbon/PFAS risk)
Golf gloves require water resistance for wet conditions. Puma has not disclosed whether the Alpha Grip uses PFAS-based or alternative hydrophobic treatments; industry standard often defaults to fluorocarbon chemistry, but confirmation is absent from public sources.
Formaldehyde resins in adhesives and finishing
Bonding synthetic leather to grip coatings typically involves formaldehyde-releasing adhesives and cross-linking resins used in fabric finishing. No test data for this specific product is publicly available; residual formaldehyde is a known concern in synthetic textiles, especially those with coatings.
Azo dyes in synthetic leather or grip coating
Synthetic leather and grip coatings may use azo dyes during manufacturing. No specific documentation of azo-dye use or restrictions in Puma golf gloves is on record; industry practice varies widely.
Microplastic shedding from grip coating degradation
Grip coatings can degrade with use and washing, especially on polyurethane-based materials. Worn gloves may shed microparticles, though direct skin ingestion risk is low; environmental release is the primary concern over extended product lifespan.
Skin sensitization from residual dyes or finishes
Direct skin contact with dyed synthetic leather and coated surfaces carries low but non-zero risk of contact dermatitis, especially in individuals with sensitive skin. Pre-washing can reduce residual chemical burden before use.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 45% 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 Golf Balls & Golf Gloves
Bridgestone
Men's Pair Golf Gloves
Leather, synthetic leather, or textile blend
Lower PFAS concern, but brand provides no transparency.
⚠Risky category by default
Bridgestone
Soft Grip Golf Glove
Leather, synthetic grip material, textiles
Lower concern. Golf glove without known waterproofing or Teflon-family coating treatment.
⚠Risky category by default
Bridgestone
Lady Golf Glove
Synthetic leather or leather with standard stitching
Golf glove with typical materials, lower concern profile.
⚠Risky category by default
More golf balls & golf gloves 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.