Puma · Golf Balls & Golf Gloves
Puma Women's Sport Performance Glove
Performance gloves likely treated with water-repellent coating; brand silent on PFAS.
Puma sport gloves use synthetic fabrics with water-repellent finish typical of performance apparel. No public PFAS disclosure or testing data available; water-repellent coating treatment raises concern but extent unknown.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
polyester, spandex with moisture-wicking water-repellent coating treatment
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
These gloves are primarily polyester with spandex (elastane) blended for stretch and fit. The moisture-wicking water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) treatment is the functional layer that sheds sweat and rain; this finish is typically applied to polyester fabrics post-manufacture. Polyester itself is stable during wear, but the water-repellent coating chemical system, whether PFAS-based or alternative, is where chemical risk concentrates. Spandex is generally inert but can degrade under high heat and UV exposure.
The brand's record and disclosure
Puma has not publicly committed to PFAS phase-out in technical apparel as of available records, and the company does not disclose water-repellent coating chemistry on consumer-facing product pages. The brand has faced scrutiny for supply-chain labor and environmental practices, but specific chemical safety certifications (Bluesign, GOTS, etc.) are not uniformly listed for sports glove lines. Absence of certification or transparency is a weakness for performance wear where chemical treatments are standard.
How it compares in its category
Most mass-market sports gloves (Nike, Adidas, generic athletic brands) use similar polyester-spandex blends with water-repellent coating treatments; this product is compositionally typical, not an outlier. Premium alternatives like Patagonia now market PFAS-free water-repellent finishes, though at higher cost. Budget and mid-market brands rarely disclose water-repellent coating type, making Puma's silence standard practice rather than exceptional negligence. Performance gloves overall carry higher chemical treatment density than basic cotton gloves.
If you buy it
Wash gloves in cool water (below 60 degrees Celsius) before first wear to reduce loose chemical residues; warm or hot water can accelerate water-repellent coating degradation and may increase leaching. Avoid chlorine bleach and fabric softeners, which break down water-repellent finishes. Air-dry only; machine drying degrades spandex and may volatilize treatment chemicals. Replace when elasticity fails or water-repellent coating beading visibly diminishes (typically 1-2 years of regular use); worn-out water-repellent coating may shed microparticles.
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-repellent coating chemical coating (likely fluorinated)
Moisture-wicking sports gloves routinely receive fluorinated water-repellent coating treatments. Puma does not disclose chemistry. Skin contact risk is low during wear, but residues may be released in first washing and microfiber shedding in final disposal.
Azo dyes in polyester colorants
Puma does not certify these gloves to restricted-substance standards (Bluesign, etc.). Polyester textiles can contain azo dyes that release aromatic amines under hydrolysis or sweat contact; risk is modest but documented in uncertified athletic wear.
Formaldehyde resin finishes (wrinkle resistance, mold inhibition)
Polyester-blended sportswear sometimes receives formaldehyde-based finishes for mildew resistance, especially in moisture-wicking lines. No independent test data on this product exists; brand silence suggests no special formulation to avoid it.
Antimony in polyester fiber
Antimony trioxide is used as a catalyst in standard polyester production but typically binds tightly in the polymer chain. Migration into skin during normal wear is extremely low; this is not a documented concern for athletic gloves.
Microplastic shedding
Polyester garments shed synthetic microfibers during washing and wear, especially when elastane is present. This glove will contribute to microplastic load in wastewater; washing in cold water and less frequent machine washing reduce release slightly.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 52% 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.