Men's Quick Dry & Moisture Wicking 360 Stretch Performance Boxer Briefs vs Women's Quarter Crew Socks (6 Pairs): which is safer?
PUMA Women's Quarter Crew Socks (6 Pairs) is our pick, better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Fruit of the Loom
Men's Quick Dry & Moisture Wicking 360 Stretch Performance Boxer Briefs
PFAS grade
Bad 20/100
Overall grade
Bad 0/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 2
Material
Polyester/nylon blend with moisture-wicking treatment
Confidence
52%
PossiblePFAS in moisture-wicking finish
LikelyMicroplastic shedding from synthetic fibers
Our pick
Puma
Women's Quarter Crew Socks (6 Pairs)
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 47/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 3
Material
Cotton/polyester blend socks, no waterproofing
Confidence
82%
PossibleAzo dyes
PossibleFormaldehyde resins (finishing agents)
ReportedMicroplastic shedding
Where these two actually differ
- We flag PFAS in moisture-wicking finish and Microplastic shedding from synthetic fibers on the Fruit of the Loom and not on the Puma.
- We flag Azo dyes, Formaldehyde resins (finishing agents) and Microplastic shedding on the Puma and not on the Fruit of the Loom.
- The Fruit of the Loom is Polyester/nylon blend with moisture-wicking treatment where the Puma is Cotton/polyester blend socks, no waterproofing, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- The gap is 45 points, wide enough that this is not a close call, and the Puma is the one to buy.
- We are less certain about the Fruit of the Loom grade, at 52% confidence against 82%, because it discloses less.
Both products run through the same public rubric, which covers materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →
More sports performance undergarments, see the full ranking