Tena · Incontinence Pads
TENA ProSkin Ultimate Bladder Control Pad
Waterproof incontinence pad; PFAS status unknown, no brand disclosure.
Incontinence pads require waterproof backing, which often uses PFAS. Tena does not disclose PFAS status or certifications. No independent lab data available.
The safe swap
Bamboo Nature
Eco by Naty Naty Incontinence Pads
100/100 safety
Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned its A.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Cellulose-based absorbent core, polyester, waterproof backing
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
period care 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
TENA ProSkin Ultimate uses a cellulose-based absorbent core (standard for incontinence pads), polyester layers, and a waterproof backing. The waterproof layer's chemistry is not publicly disclosed by Tena, which is the primary concern: waterproof coatings on incontinence and period products frequently use PFAS compounds or other synthetic polymers to block liquid while allowing air passage. Cellulose itself is low-risk; polyester is chemically stable and not a primary hazard in this application, but the backing material remains opaque.
The brand's record and disclosure
Tena (owned by SCA, a Swedish hygiene company) has not publicly committed to PFAS disclosure or elimination in incontinence products, despite growing scrutiny of waterproof feminine and medical absorbents. The brand has not published material safety data sheets or third-party testing for PFAS content in this specific product line. Competitors like Seventh Generation and some European brands have begun voluntary PFAS labeling or substitution; Tena's silence suggests no current priority on this issue.
How it compares in its category
Most incontinence pads in the mass market use similar cellulose-polyester-waterproof backing construction. Tena is a market leader and generally regarded as reliable for absorbency and comfort. However, it lacks the transparency of some premium or eco-focused alternatives (e.g., products certified PFAS-free or using stated non-fluorine coatings). If PFAS exposure is a priority, this product offers no reassurance relative to generic store brands.
If you buy it
Change pads regularly (do not rewear or extend use beyond saturation) to minimize prolonged skin contact with the waterproof backing. Do not heat, microwave, or incinerate used pads. Store in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight to prevent polymer degradation. If you experience unexplained skin irritation or sensitivity, switch to a PFAS-free alternative or one with disclosed synthetic backing materials. Consider asking Tena directly for waterproof layer composition before committing to bulk purchase.
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.”
PFAS in waterproof backing (graded separately by your PFAS methodology)
Waterproof backing composition is undisclosed. PFAS is a common choice for this function in incontinence pads; absence of public PFAS-free certification suggests unknown status rather than confirmed safety.
Skin irritation from synthetic backing or degradation byproducts
Incontinence pads in general carry low but documented risk of contact dermatitis, particularly with prolonged wear or in warm, moist conditions. Polyester and unknown backing coatings can contribute to this. Individual sensitivity varies widely.
Microplastics from backing degradation
Polyester and plastic coatings can shed microparticles over the product's lifespan, especially if repeatedly compressed, heated, or stored poorly. Exposure is localized to skin contact; systemic risk is not established but microplastic shedding is not actively monitored in this category.
Absorbent gel (acrylic polymer) leachate exposure
If this product uses superabsorbent polymer (SAP) beads in the core, these are sealed by cellulose and polyester layers; migration to skin is documented as negligible under normal use, but individual sensitivity to residual monomer is theoretically possible.
Formaldehyde or aldehyde releasers in adhesives or binders
Tena does not disclose adhesive chemistry. Modern incontinence pad adhesives rarely contain free formaldehyde, but some cheaper products still use formaldehyde-releasing resins; no known recalls or complaints specific to Tena suggest this is controlled, but transparency is absent.
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 Incontinence Pads
Bamboo Nature
Eco by Naty Naty Incontinence Pads
Bamboo-derived viscose, cotton, plant-based absorbent core
Lower PFAS concern; natural materials and third-party certification support safety, but no explicit brand PFAS statement.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Tranquility
Personal Care Pads
Cellulose and cotton-based absorbent core with polymer backsheet
Lower concern, period pads lack typical PFAS applications, but brand transparency on materials would raise confidence.
⚠Risky category by default
Northshore
Premium 36
Cellulose, SAP, PE backing
Lower concern; standard absorbent hygiene product without known PFAS-prone features.
⚠Risky category by default
More incontinence pads 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.