Under Armour · Waterproof Sports Gear
Under Armour Men's Fish Pro 2.0 Cargo Shorts
Fishing shorts likely have water-repellent coating treatment; PFAS risk unclear without disclosure.
Pro fishing shorts typically use water-repellent coating finishes, which commonly contain PFAS. Under Armour provides no public PFAS statement for this product, leaving exposure uncertain.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
polyester blend with water-repellent coating water-resistant 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
These shorts are polyester blend, likely 88% polyester/12% spandex or similar elastane content based on typical Under Armour construction. The water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish is the primary concern: manufacturers often use PFAS-based treatments to achieve water-resistance, though some now use PFAS-free alternatives. The polyester itself is synthetic polymer stable under normal wear; the finish treatment applied post-manufacture is where chemical leaching risk concentrates, especially if the coating degrades from washing, sun exposure, or abrasion.
The brand's record and disclosure
Under Armour has not published detailed water-repellent coating chemistry or PFAS phase-out commitments specific to their apparel lines, placing them behind outdoor brands like Patagonia or The North Face on transparency. The company remains silent on whether this product uses legacy fluorinated compounds or newer fluorine-free alternatives. No major recalls or PFAS-specific controversies have been documented for Under Armour shorts, but lack of disclosure is itself a red flag for informed consumers seeking chemical specificity.
How it compares in its category
Most budget to mid-range fishing and performance shorts with water-repellent coating finishes carry similar undisclosed PFAS risk. High-end alternatives (Simms, Orvis) increasingly disclose PFAS-free treatments, while budget alternatives often use spray-on fluorinated coatings. Under Armour sits in the middle market where water-repellent coating is standard but transparency is rare. If PFAS avoidance is a priority, seeking brands with explicit PFAS-free certifications (Bluesign or similar) would reduce this uncertainty.
If you buy it
Wash in cool water and avoid hot machine drying, which can accelerate coating breakdown and any potential leaching from the water-repellent coating finish. Air-dry flat or hung to extend the water-resistant layer's life. Replace after 2-3 years of regular use or once water-repellency visibly fails (beading stops). Do not dry-clean or iron, as heat and solvents degrade synthetic coatings. If PFAS exposure concerns you, consider these shorts acceptable for activities where the water-repellent coating is not essential (casual wear) rather than frequent water exposure.
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.”
Azo dyes in polyester coloring
Polyester fishing shorts often use acid or disperse dyes; not all are azo-free, and no manufacturer testing is publicly available for this specific product. Risk of allergic skin reactions or dye migration is low but increases with prolonged moisture and heat.
water-repellent coating degradation and leaching
The water-resistant finish degrades over time and washing; if PFAS-based, leaching into sweat or wash water is greatest during early use and after the coating begins to fail. Under Armour's silence on chemistry makes risk quantification impossible.
Spandex elastane thermal instability
Spandex blends in shorts are stable under normal wear and modest heat; no documented hazard for this product type or brand. Avoid prolonged direct sunlight or machine drying on high heat to preserve elasticity and avoid any theoretical volatile release.
Formaldehyde resins in finishing
Modern polyester apparel finishes typically avoid formaldehyde resins, and no recalls or testing for this product suggest active contamination. water-repellent coating treatment is the primary post-manufacture chemical, not formaldehyde-based.
Synthetic fiber microplastic shedding
All polyester apparel sheds microfibers during washing; water-repellent coating-coated items may shed slightly more as the coating degrades. This is a water-quality concern rather than direct wearer hazard but relevant for environmental context.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 48% 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 Waterproof Sports Gear
Patagonia
Men's 10" Quandary Shorts
nylon/polyester blend with water-repellent coating treatment
Lower concern. Patagonia uses PFC-free water-repellent coating; verify MADE SAFE label on tag.
✓Lab test found no PFAS
Reebok
Men's Athlete Speed Shorts
Polyester mesh and nylon blend, standard athletic construction
Lower concern. Standard athletic shorts without water-resistant coating.
⚠Risky category by default
Patagonia
Men's Home Waters Hybrid Shorts
Polyester blend with PFAS-free water-repellent coating finish
Lower concern. Patagonia phased out PFAS-based water-repellent coating; verify current product line batch.
⚠Waterproof or stain-proof treatment
More waterproof sports gear 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.