The Best Non-Toxic Period Underwear of 2026
54 of the 94 period underwear products PFAS Authority has graded score below its 70 point pass mark for PFAS and other toxins, 57.4% of the category, as of October 2026, leaving 40 that pass. The highest graded is Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen Period Underwear at 100 out of 100.
Every grade below is built from published materials, ingredient lists, certifications and brand disclosures, scored on one public rubric and ranked best-graded first. Each score links to the full breakdown of what earned it, and the numbers across the whole dataset are published too.
Is period underwear non-toxic?
40 of the 94 period underwear products we graded clear our screen and 54 do not. Non-toxic is not a defined or regulated term, so what we can tell you is what our graders recorded. Beyond PFAS, the hazards found or left unruled-out on period underwear products in this category are microplastics, artificial dyes, formaldehyde, undisclosed fragrance, heavy metals. The highest graded here is Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen Period Underwear at 100 out of 100.
Quick picks
Best overall
Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen Period UnderwearHighest PFAS grade in the category
100 Excellent
Brand states its position
Lunapads 3-Pack BOOST BriefThe brand has published a PFAS statement we can quote
100 Excellent
A second brand to consider
Aisle Super HipsterThe best grade here from a brand other than the winner
100 Excellent
Why Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen wins, and what it beats
Every grade on this page is one sum. A category starts from a baseline, each disclosed material or coating adds risk points, and each thing the brand or a third party has published takes them away. Below is that sum for the winner, then for 3 products it beats, so you can see exactly where the 75 points between the top and the bottom of this period underwear ranking come from.
The winner
Made of organic cotton, waterproof backing layer.
- +35Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment. Water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.
- +25Category baseline. The starting point for this type of product, before anything specific to this product is counted.
- -30Third-party PFAS-free verification. A third party reports verifying this product as PFAS-free.
- -40No PFAS found in lab test. No PFAS detected in independent testing.
What the grade does not fix. It still carries one risk factor, Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment, and our graders recorded 2 other hazards on it. See the full breakdown.
What it beats, and why
What puts it behind. The winner earns -40 points for No PFAS found in lab test. We found nothing comparable published for this product.
Made of organic cotton with gusseted absorbent layer.
- +25Category baseline
- -10Brand-stated PFAS-free. The brand states this product is PFAS-free. We have not verified the claim.
- -10Base material not linked to PFAS. The main material recorded for this product is not one associated with PFAS.
5risk points, a grade of 95
What puts it behind. No PFAS disclosure, +15 points. No public statement from the brand about PFAS in this product. The winner carries no such factor.
Made of 100% organic cotton topsheet.
- +25Category baseline
- +15No PFAS disclosure
- -10Base material not linked to PFAS. The main material recorded for this product is not one associated with PFAS.
30risk points, a grade of 70
What puts it behind. No PFAS disclosure, +15 points. No public statement from the brand about PFAS in this product. The winner carries no such factor.
Made of Cotton blend with water-resistant coating.
- +35Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
- +25Category baseline
- +15No PFAS disclosure
75risk points, a grade of 25
No product on this page was physically tested by us. Every number above comes from published materials, ingredient and coating disclosures, certifications and brand statements, scored on one public rubric. Formulations change without notice, so check the current product listing before buying.
What to watch for in period underwear
Beyond the PFAS grade, these are the things our graders recorded on the 94 period underwear products in this category. We assess from materials, brand statements and published research. We do not lab-test.
- Microplastics
Plastic fragments small enough to shed from a product into food, water or air without anyone seeing it.
Found on 11 of these period underwear products. Plausible but unconfirmed on 46 more, meaning nobody has ruled it out. EPA
- Artificial dyes
Synthetic colours added to food, cosmetics and textiles, most of them petroleum derived.
Plausible but unconfirmed on 30 more, meaning nobody has ruled it out. FDA
- Formaldehyde
A preservative and resin ingredient that is also released slowly by a group of chemicals used in its place.
Plausible but unconfirmed on 26 more, meaning nobody has ruled it out. NCI
- Undisclosed fragrance
A single word on a label that can stand for dozens of undeclared ingredients, protected as trade secret.
Plausible but unconfirmed on 14 more, meaning nobody has ruled it out. FDA
- Heavy metals
Metals such as antimony, nickel and chromium migrating from a material into what touches it.
Plausible but unconfirmed on 5 more, meaning nobody has ruled it out. ATSDR
The safest period underwear we graded, lowest PFAS risk first
- 1
Third-party verified
- organic cotton, waterproof backing layer
- A third party reports verifying it as PFAS-free
- Coating degradation and microparticle shedding
2 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
- 2
- organic cotton blend, water-resistant gusset
- The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
- Microplastic shedding from water-resistant barrier
- 3
- Organic cotton, wood pulp fiber
- The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
- Azo dyes and synthetic dyes
2 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
- 4
- organic cotton, bamboo, gusseted absorbent layers
- The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
- Formaldehyde / VOCs
4 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
- 5
Lunam Hipster Brief Light Flow
100ExcellentPFAS grade- organic cotton blend, no water-repellent coating
- The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
- Elastane/spandex degradation under stress
2 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
- 6
- organic cotton with gusseted absorbent layer
- The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
- Formaldehyde / VOCs
4 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
- 7
- organic cotton blend with water-resistant coating
- The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
- Water-resistant coating composition (unspecified chemistry)
4 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
- 8
- absorbent fabric blend with proprietary waterproof barrier
- The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
- Undisclosed waterproof barrier chemistry
3 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
What the evidence says about PFAS in period underwear
Independent testing has repeatedly found signs of intentionally added PFAS in some period underwear, but not all. A 2025 peer-reviewed University of Notre Dame study found intentional fluorination in 33 percent of the period underwear it tested, with one quarter containing at least 1,000 ppm of fluorine, while most reusable menstrual products overall showed no sign of intentional PFAS. Thinx and Knix both settled class actions over PFAS without admitting wrongdoing. California, Minnesota, Colorado and Maine now ban PFAS in menstrual products, and Minnesota’s agency says its ban covers period underwear.
- Independent testA 2025 University of Notre Dame study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters found the greatest rates of intentional fluorination in period underwear (33 percent) and reusable pads (25 percent), while 71 percent of samples were characterized as not intentionally fluorinated. University of Notre Dame ↗
- Independent testAccording to the American Chemical Society, one quarter of the period underwear in that study contained at least 1,000 ppm of fluorine, with the highest reaching 77,000 ppm. American Chemical Society (archived page) ↗
- Independent testNotre Dame’s 2023 screening found relatively high total fluorine in a subset of period underwear, which the researchers said indicates intentionally added PFAS, with the highest measurements above 100,000 ppm. University of Notre Dame ↗
- Independent testMamavation’s lab screen found detectable fluorine in 11 of the 17 pairs of period underwear it tested. Mamavation ↗
- Legal caseThinx settled a class action in the Southern District of New York over PFAS in its period underwear, with a settlement fund of up to $5 million according to the plaintiffs’ settlement filing. Plaintiffs’ filing via ClassAction.org ↗
- Legal caseUnder that settlement Thinx agreed to measures that require suppliers to attest that PFAS are not intentionally added to its period underwear, and the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. Thinx settlement site (archived page) ↗
- Legal caseKnix agreed to pay $1.4 million, and up to $600,000 more if needed, to settle a class action over its marketing. Knix settlement site (archived page) ↗
- Legal caseThe Knix settlement agreement requires Knix to revise its website to remove references to its products being PFAS free. Settlement agreement via Truth in Advertising ↗
- Regulatory filingCalifornia bans the manufacture and sale of menstrual products that contain regulated PFAS. California Legislature ↗
- Regulatory filingMinnesota’s ban on intentionally added PFAS, in force since 2025, covers menstruation products such as pads, tampons, period underwear and menstrual cups. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ↗
- Regulatory filingColorado’s SB24-081 adds menstruation products to the products that may not contain intentionally added PFAS. Colorado General Assembly ↗
- Regulatory filingMaine has banned the sale of menstruation products containing intentionally added PFAS since January 1, 2026. Maine Legislature ↗
Sources checked September 14, 2026. A brand statement is the company’s own claim, which we report but have not verified. Our grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests.
Questions people ask about period underwear
You may also be interested in
Top-graded picks in the categories readers replace first, every one scored on the same rubric.
- polypropylene filter housing, carbon/sediment cartridge
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Bacterial growth in spent cartridges
3 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
Aquasure
Premier Series 75 GPD Under Sink Reverse Osmosis Water Filtration System
- RO membrane, carbon filters, stainless steel housing
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Bacterial and microbial growth in housing and filters
4 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
Avocado
Vegan Mattress
- organic cotton, natural latex, coconut coir, recycled steel coils
- The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
- Heavy metals
2 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
Every period underwear that passes, side by side
Sorted by score. A higher score means lower PFAS risk. Scored against 3 hazards that apply to this category.
| # | Period Underwear | Score | Rating | Made of | Key concern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen Period Underwear | 100 | Excellent | organic cotton, waterproof backing layer | Coating degradation and microparticle shedding |
| 2 | Lunapads 3-Pack BOOST Brief | 100 | Excellent | organic cotton blend, water-resistant gusset | Microplastic shedding from water-resistant barrier |
| 3 | Aisle Super Hipster | 100 | Excellent | Organic cotton, wood pulp fiber | Azo dyes and synthetic dyes |
| 4 | Aisle Period Underwear Hipster | 100 | Excellent | organic cotton, bamboo, gusseted absorbent layers | Formaldehyde / VOCs |
| 5 | Lunam Hipster Brief Light Flow | 100 | Excellent | organic cotton blend, no DWR coating | Elastane/spandex degradation under stress |
| 6 | Lola Organic Cotton Period Underwear | 95 | Excellent | organic cotton with gusseted absorbent layer | Formaldehyde / VOCs |
| 7 | Modibodi Basic Mid-Rise Period Brief | 90 | Excellent | organic cotton blend with water-resistant coating | Water-resistant coating composition (unspecified chemistry) |
| 8 | Aisle BOOST Hipster Size PFAS Free leakproof period underwear | 90 | Excellent | absorbent fabric blend with proprietary waterproof barrier | Undisclosed waterproof barrier chemistry |
The verdict on period underwear
Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen Period Underwear grades 100 out of 100, the highest here. It is organic cotton, waterproof backing layer. A third party reports verifying it as PFAS-free.
Choose Lunapads 3-Pack BOOST Brief instead if you want a second option at 100 out of 100, organic cotton blend, water-resistant gusset.
We hold no price data, so nothing here is a budget recommendation. Grades are model-based assessments from published materials and disclosures, not laboratory tests.
The period underwear we would skip
Lowest scoring in this category, worst first, with the reason.
- 25Poor
- 25Poor
- 25Poor
What we check on period underwear
- Formaldehyde / VOCs. Off-gassing chemicals from some finishes, textiles, and pressed wood. ATSDR
- Endocrine disruptors. Chemicals that interfere with the body’s hormone system. NIEHS
- Phthalates. Plastic softeners studied for endocrine effects. ATSDR
Full point-by-point rubric on the methodology page.
The period underwear brands we found no PFAS statement from
We found no PFAS statement from 17 of the brands here. That is our research, not proof a brand has never said anything, and it is not evidence of harm. It is why none of them score well on disclosure.
Aisle, Bambody, Boyshort, Chantelle, Cora, Dear Kate, Hanes, Icon Underwear, Love Luna, Lunapads, No Boundaries, Proof.
The brands that have published something, and what each of them actually said, are in our record of what every brand has said about PFAS.
Common questions about PFAS in period underwear
Is period underwear PFAS free?
54 of the 94 period underwear products PFAS Authority has graded score below its 70 point pass mark for PFAS and other toxins, 57.4% of the category, as of October 2026, leaving 40 that pass. The highest graded is Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen Period Underwear at 100 out of 100. The lowest graded is No Boundaries Boyshort Super Absorbency Period Underwear 2-Pack Womens at 25 out of 100.
Is period underwear non-toxic?
40 of the 94 period underwear products we graded clear our screen and 54 do not. Non-toxic is not a defined or regulated term, so what we can tell you is what our graders recorded. Beyond PFAS, the hazards found or left unruled-out on period underwear products in this category are microplastics, artificial dyes, formaldehyde, undisclosed fragrance, heavy metals. The highest graded here is Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen Period Underwear at 100 out of 100.
What is the safest period underwear to buy?
On our grades, Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen Period Underwear at 100 out of 100, which we band as Excellent. Then Lunapads 3-Pack BOOST Brief at 100. These are model-based assessments from published materials, ingredient lists, certifications and disclosures, not laboratory tests, so treat them as the lowest risk we can evidence rather than a safety guarantee.
Which period underwear grades best for PFAS?
Ruby Love Rubylove First Period Kit +teen Period Underwear, at 100 out of 100, which we band as Excellent. It is organic cotton, waterproof backing layer. The runner up is Lunapads 3-Pack BOOST Brief at 100.
Which period underwear should I avoid?
The three lowest scoring we hold are No Boundaries Boyshort Super Absorbency Period Underwear 2-Pack Womens at 25, Thinx Intimates & Sleepwear Thinx for All Women's Period Underwear at 25, hannahSENSE High Waist Period Underwear at 25. The problem with the first is that period absorbent underwear; waterproof coating creates PFAS risk.
How can you tell if period underwear contains PFAS?
In this category we check for formaldehyde / VOCs, endocrine disruptors, phthalates. Off-gassing chemicals from some finishes, textiles, and pressed wood. Language like stain resistant, water repellent or easy release usually means fluorinated chemistry even when PFAS is never printed on the box.
Which period underwear brands have not published a PFAS statement?
We found no PFAS statement from 17 of the brands we scored in this category, including Aisle, Bambody, Boyshort, Chantelle, Cora, Dear Kate. That is what our research turned up, not proof a brand has never said anything, and a missing statement is not evidence of harm. It is the reason those brands cannot score well on disclosure.
Do you lab test period underwear?
No. We score from published ingredient lists, materials, certifications, disclosures and third party lab results where they exist. Where a product has been independently tested we use that result and say so.
More beauty and personal care categories we have graded
Same rubric, same scale. These are the categories closest to period underwear.
Get the graded list, free.
The products we score each week, and the best-graded alternative in every category.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Does a particular brand of period underwear have PFAS?
We also wrote this up at length. PFAS in Period Underwear, a Lab Test Beats Every Brand Statement
Want to filter the whole category yourself? Browse all 94 period underwear.