Under Armour · Waterproof Sports Gear
Under Armour Men's Shorebreak 2 in 1 Amphib Shorts
water-repellent coating treatment likely contains PFAS. Brand silent on chemical disclosure.
Amphib shorts use standard water-repellent coating water-repellent coating, typically fluorinated. Under Armour provides no PFAS transparency or claims. Moderate concern without third-party verification.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Polyester blend with water-repellent coating water-repellent 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 primarily polyester with an elastane blend, designed for water and moisture management in athletic/beach settings. The water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish applied to the fabric is the main concern: water-repellent coating treatments have historically used Teflon-type coating-based or PFAS-based chemistries to achieve water shedding. Polyester itself is chemically stable during normal wear, but the finish is where chemical leaching risk concentrates, especially during washing and extended water exposure.
The brand's record and disclosure
Under Armour has not publicly committed to PFAS-free water-repellent coating treatments or disclosed the specific chemistry of water-repellent finishes on their products. The brand maintains a general sustainability messaging but does not provide chemical transparency reports comparable to competitors like Patagonia or Arc'teryx. No major product recalls or regulatory actions specific to Under Armour athletic shorts have been documented, but the brand's silence on water-repellent coating composition reflects industry-wide reluctance to disclose these details.
How it compares in its category
Most mainstream athletic shorts with water-repellent coating finishes (Nike, Adidas, Columbia) use similar PFAS-containing treatments; this product sits in the typical commercial range rather than at the safer end. Premium outdoor brands increasingly offer PFAS-free alternatives using wax or other non-fluorinated hydrophobic coatings, though these are less durable and more expensive. Under Armour's positioning as a mid-to-premium athletic brand means it has the capacity to switch but has not done so publicly.
If you buy it
Wash separately in cold water without softeners to minimize water-repellent coating finish degradation and potential leaching into household water. Avoid high heat drying, which can accelerate coating breakdown. Do not use fabric treatments or specialty wash additives unless branded for water-repellent coating fabrics, as these can strip or alter the finish. Replace when water beading noticeably declines (typically 1-2 years of regular use); degraded water-repellent coating increases microfiber shedding into water.
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 water-repellent coating (water-repellent) finish
water-repellent coating treatment on polyester athletic wear commonly uses PFAS-based chemistry; Under Armour does not disclose composition. Leaching occurs primarily during washing and can accumulate in household water systems.
Formaldehyde resins in textile finishing
No documented reports of formaldehyde-based curing agents in Under Armour athletic shorts. Polyester blends typically use low-formaldehyde or formaldehyde-free finishing when not azo-dye bound.
Azo dyes and heavy metal pigments
No recalls or documented issues with azo dye contamination or heavy metal content in Under Armour polyester apparel. Standard polyester dyeing processes generally avoid highest-risk azo chemistry.
Antimony in polyester
Polyester catalyst residues (antimony) are present at trace levels in most virgin polyester fabric. No health risk at typical consumer exposure levels; not a distinguishing hazard for this brand.
Microplastic shedding with wear and wash
All polyester textiles shed microfibers during washing. Frequency increases when water-repellent coating finish degrades. This product is not uniquely high-risk but contributors to marine microplastic load with repeated washing.
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 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.