Tommy Hilfiger · Waterproof Sports Undergarments
Tommy Hilfiger Men's Regular Fit Wicking Polo
Skip until brand discloses water-repellent coating treatment chemistry details.
Polo includes moisture-wicking coating, likely water-repellent coating-treated. Tommy Hilfiger provides no PFAS disclosure; treatment composition unknown.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
polyester blend with moisture-wicking 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
This polo is a polyester-blend fabric (likely polyester-cotton or polyester-nylon mix) treated with a moisture-wicking finish to repel sweat and dry faster. Polyester itself is chemically stable, but the 'wicking' treatment, typically a fluorochemical water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) or oleophobic coating, is where PFAS concern enters. Tommy Hilfiger has not disclosed whether this treatment uses PFAS-containing compounds or PFAS-free alternatives, leaving the specific chemistry unknown.
The brand's record and disclosure
Tommy Hilfiger (owned by PVH Corp) has not publicly committed to PFAS-free treatments or disclosed treatment chemistry for performance polos as of current records. PVH Corp has announced some sustainability commitments but does not highlight PFAS phase-out as a priority in apparel. No major recalls or safety controversies specific to Tommy Hilfiger polos are on record, and azo dyes and formaldehyde resins in mainstream brands like this are generally kept within legal limits, though testing at the product level is not routine.
How it compares in its category
Performance polos across brands (Nike, Adidas, Under Armour) typically rely on similar moisture-wicking treatments, most of which historically used PFAS compounds. Tommy Hilfiger's entry-level positioning means cost-driven formulation; premium athletic brands more often publish PFAS-free certifications. This product sits in the middle: mainstream, undisclosed chemistry, and functionally no different from competitors in hazard profile without explicit testing.
If you buy it
Wash in cold water and air-dry or line-dry; avoid hot water and machine drying, which can degrade the wicking coating and potentially increase leaching. Wear directly against skin rather than as an outer layer if you have sensitive skin, since undisclosed finishes may trigger irritation in susceptible individuals. Replace if the finish degrades visibly (loss of water repellency, pilling) or after 50-80 washes. Do not assume the finish is PFAS-free without independent lab confirmation from the brand.
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 moisture-wicking treatment (water-repellent coating)
Undisclosed wicking finish is standard vector for PFAS in performance apparel. Brand silence on chemistry means PFAS presence cannot be ruled out; typical fluorochemical water-repellent coating formulations contain long-chain PFAS.
Antimony in polyester fiber
Polyester production may use antimony as a catalyst, but migration to skin and leaching under normal wear and washing is not established as a safety risk in finished apparel at legal manufacturing limits.
Formaldehyde resins in fabric finishing
Wrinkle-resistance and dye-fixing finishes may contain formaldehyde releasers; Tommy Hilfiger products sold in major markets are subject to CPSIA and EU textile safety limits, which restrict free formaldehyde to safe thresholds.
Azo dyes and allergenic colorants
No recall or health advisory exists for Tommy Hilfiger polo colorants. Mainstream brands are required to avoid restricted azo dyes that cleave to carcinogenic amines, though product-level independent testing is not public.
Coating degradation and shed microplastics (polyester blend)
Polyester fibers shed microplastics in the wash; the moisture-wicking finish, if chemically unstable or poorly adhered, may fragment and enter water. Frequency and mass are not quantified for this specific product.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 35% 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.