Tommy Hilfiger · Waterproof Sports Undergarments
Tommy Hilfiger Men's Regular Fit TH Performance Tech Polo
Performance polo likely uses water-repellent coating treatment; PFAS status unclear from brand.
TH Performance Tech fabrics typically feature water-resistant and stain-resistant finishes common in performance polos. Tommy Hilfiger does not publicly disclose PFAS use or avoidance in this product line.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Polyester blend with performance water-repellent coating finish
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
This polo is a polyester blend (likely 85-100% polyester with elastane or cotton) engineered with a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish marketed as "Performance Tech." Polyester itself is chemically stable and does not leach BPA or phthalates under normal wear and laundering. However, the water-repellent coating applied to achieve moisture-wicking and stain resistance typically relies on fluorochemicals (PFAS compounds) to function, which is the primary chemical concern with this garment class.
The brand's record and disclosure
Tommy Hilfiger (owned by PVH Corp) has not publicly disclosed whether this specific performance line uses fluorine-based or fluorine-free water-repellent coating treatments. The brand has faced pressure on PFAS transparency from major competitors but maintains minimal public communication on chemical use in its technical apparel. No established safety recalls or toxicology findings specific to this product line are on record. Certification details (e.g., OEKO-TEX, bluesign) are not stated on standard product listings.
How it compares in its category
Performance polos with water-repellent coating finishes from most mainstream brands (Nike, Adidas, Polo Ralph Lauren) carry similar PFAS uncertainty; this product does not stand out as higher or lower risk than peers at its price point. Brands explicitly using fluorine-free water-repellent coating (e.g., some Patagonia technical wear) offer more transparency but at higher cost. Most synthetic athletic polos assume some PFAS exposure unless certified otherwise.
If you buy it
Wash in cool or warm water (not hot) to reduce potential PFAS migration and preserve the water-repellent coating finish. Tumble dry on low heat or air dry; high heat can degrade the coating and potentially increase off-gassing. If the water-repellent function fails within 1-2 years of regular wash cycles, consider replacement rather than re-treatment at home. Avoid dry cleaning, which uses harsher solvents that may interact with water-repellent coating coatings.
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 (PFAS) in water-repellent coating finish
Performance Tech water-repellent coating treatment almost certainly uses fluorinated compounds; no public disclosure from Tommy Hilfiger confirms or rules out PFAS. Skin contact and dermal absorption risk is low under normal wear; primary concern is manufacturing/laundering wastewater persistence.
Antimony in polyester synthesis
Polyester is synthesized using antimony trioxide as a catalyst in many manufacturing plants. Finished fabric antimony migration to skin is negligible under standard conditions, but risk increases if garment is worn continuously at high temperatures or in direct contact with damaged seams.
Azo dyes (if color-dyed)
Colored polyester polos may contain azo dyes; Tommy Hilfiger does not publish dye chemistry for this line. Azo dye toxicity is low in finished fabric unless the dye breaks down via prolonged UV exposure or excessive heat, releasing aromatic amines.
Formaldehyde resins in wrinkle-resistant finish
This product is not marketed as wrinkle-resistant or easy-care fabric, so formaldehyde-based resin finishes are unlikely. Standard polyester blends do not require formaldehyde treatment.
Microplastics shedding during laundering
Synthetic polyester textiles shed microfibers into wastewater with every wash cycle. The water-repellent coating may increase surface degradation over time, potentially increasing shed rate; environmental rather than direct health hazard.
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.
More waterproof sports undergarments 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.