Under Armour · Waterproof Sports Gear
Under Armour Men's Sportstyle Elite Cargo Shorts
Likely uses water-repellent coating treatment; PFAS risk unclear without disclosure.
Under Armour does not disclose PFAS content or water-repellent coating chemistry for this cargo short. Most athletic shorts with water-repellent finishes use PFAS, but brand silence prevents confirmation.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
polyester blend with 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
These shorts are polyester-blend fabric treated with a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish. Polyester itself is a synthetic polymer stable at normal wear temperatures, but the water-repellent coating applied to achieve water resistance is the primary chemical concern. water-repellent coating finishes historically relied on PFAS compounds; modern formulations vary widely, and Under Armour has not publicly disclosed which chemistry they use for this product line. The polyester blend may also contain formaldehyde-based resins as anti-wrinkle or finishing agents, a common industry practice.
The brand's record and disclosure
Under Armour has not published detailed chemical disclosure policies comparable to brands like Patagonia or Nike, which have committed to phasing out PFAS in apparel. The company has made general sustainability statements but remains silent on specific water-repellent coating chemistry in most product lines, including this one. No major chemical-safety recalls or health complaints specific to Under Armour shorts appear in public records, but the lack of transparency limits independent verification of chemical safety.
How it compares in its category
Most performance shorts in this price and brand tier use polyester with some form of water treatment. Brands offering PFAS-free alternatives (e.g., paraffin-based or silicone water-repellent coating) typically cost more or highlight this feature explicitly, which Under Armour does not. Standard cotton or cotton-blend shorts avoid water-repellent coating chemistry entirely but sacrifice durability and water resistance. These shorts occupy the middle ground: functional and affordable, but with chemical opacity.
If you buy it
Wash in cool water with mild detergent; avoid fabric softeners, which can degrade the water-repellent coating finish and potentially mobilize residual chemicals. Do not dry-clean or expose to high heat, as this can increase off-gassing of any formaldehyde resins. Plan to rewash before first wear to reduce loose dyes and finish residues. Replace the shorts if the water-repellent coating visibly degrades or flakes, as compromised coatings may shed microfibers and concentrated treatment chemicals.
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 finish
Polyester water-repellent coating coatings commonly use PFAS for water repellency unless explicitly reformulated. Under Armour's silence on chemistry suggests no public commitment to PFAS-free alternatives, making exposure plausible though not confirmed by testing.
Formaldehyde-based finishing resins
Polyester textiles are often treated with formaldehyde resins for wrinkle resistance and finish durability. Off-gassing is typically minimal after washing, but unwashed or poorly ventilated storage may retain volatile residues.
Azo dyes
Polyester blends in budget-to-mid-tier sportswear frequently use azo dyes; some azo compounds can break down into carcinogenic amines. Under Armour does not disclose dye chemistry for this product, though no recalls are on record.
Antimony in polyester
Polyester production can involve antimony catalysts, but residual antimony in finished garments is typically below regulatory limits and not a documented issue in standard apparel use.
Microfiber shedding and coating degradation
As with most synthetic shorts, repeated washing and wear shed microfibers. water-repellent coating coatings that degrade or flake may accelerate shedding and expose underlying treatment chemicals; lifespan depends heavily on care.
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.