Puma · Golf Balls & Golf Gloves
PUR3 Rain Golf Gloves
Golf gloves likely water-treated; brand silent on PFAS ingredients.
PUR3 Rain gloves are designed for wet conditions, implying water-repellent coating treatment, but Puma discloses nothing about PFAS or treatment chemistry. Waterproof apparel carries elevated risk unless verified otherwise.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Synthetic leather or microfiber with water-resistant 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
PUR3 Rain Golf Gloves use synthetic microfiber or synthetic leather with a water-resistant topical treatment. The water-resistance almost certainly relies on a fluorochemical finish, as that is the industry standard for performance golf gloves marketed for wet conditions. Microfiber itself is inert polyester, but the applied coating is where chemical risk concentrates. No public testing or ingredient disclosure from Puma exists for this specific glove line.
The brand's record and disclosure
Puma has not published detailed PFAS policies or restricted fluorochemical use in apparel as of publicly available records. The brand does not disclose water-resistant treatment chemistry on product labels or websites for golf gloves. Puma has faced scrutiny on labor and environmental transparency but not specific chemical hazard communications for performance sportswear. This silence is typical in the golf equipment industry and does not indicate testing, but it does mean you cannot verify what fluorochemical is used.
How it compares in its category
Most rain-rated golf gloves from major brands (Callaway, TaylorMade, FootJoy) rely on similar fluorochemical water-repellent finishes; this product is not an outlier. Non-treated microfiber or leather gloves exist but sacrifice the rain performance that justifies the 'Rain' name. Gloves with PFOA-free or wax-based water treatments are rare in competitive golf and not widely marketed at this price point. In terms of transparency, Puma is typical rather than leading or lagging for this category.
If you buy it
Wash hands after use if the glove surface feels waxy or slick, as this indicates active fluorochemical coating. Avoid exposing the glove to high heat (over 60C/140F) or direct flame, as heating can degrade polymer and coating. Replace when the grip deteriorates or water no longer beads; this usually occurs after 1-2 seasons of regular play. Do not machine wash; hand wash gently with water and mild soap, then air dry to preserve the water-resistant finish.
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.”
Fluorochemical water-resistant coating (PFAS-class)
Water-resistant golf gloves almost universally use fluorochemical finishes. Puma does not disclose the specific PFAS compound (PFOA, PFOS, or GenX-class alternative). Skin contact with treated microfiber is low-risk compared to ingestion, but repeated handling and washout over months can release residue.
Azo dyes in synthetic leather or microfiber
No recalls or testing reports exist for PUR3 Rain gloves or typical Puma golf gloves. Microfiber is typically dyed with azo compounds; however, EU and many brand-voluntary restrictions have reduced high-risk amines. Without independent testing, hazard level cannot be confirmed but is not documented as a concern for this product.
Formaldehyde in fabric finishing resins
Synthetic microfiber may include trace formaldehyde-based resins in the backing or finish. Golf gloves are typically low-formaldehyde compared to apparel, and no public complaints or recalls for PUR3 or similar Puma gloves are on record.
Antimony in polyester microfiber
Antimony is used as a polymerization catalyst in polyester production. Modern golf gloves from major brands generally use antimony levels below regulatory thresholds, and no specific testing or reports for this product exist.
Skin irritation or contact dermatitis from coating or dyes
Individual sensitivity to fluorochemical finishes or synthetic leather dyes varies widely. No adverse event reports specific to PUR3 Rain gloves are publicly available, but glove users with sensitive skin should test fit and wear time before extended play.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 42% 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.