PFAS in Golf Equipment, Why the Gloves Grade Worse Than the Balls

If you came here worried about golf balls, our data says look elsewhere in your bag. Most golf balls we graded sit at 85 out of 100, because a ball is a rubber or synthetic elastomer core under an ionomer or urethane cover and none of that requires a water-repellent treatment. A group of Bridgestone and Callaway balls grade 50, because their records describe a cover coating whose composition is not given. The lowest grades belong to gloves sold on wet-weather performance.

The cleanest comparison in our whole dataset sits inside this category. The Mizuno Cabretta Leather Golf Glove grades 85 out of 100, described as cabretta leather with standard tanning and no water treatment. The FootJoy WeatherSof Golf Glove grades 40, described as cabretta leather with a water-resistant treatment. Same leather, different finish, and a 45 point gap. Below we break down the graded equipment so you can see where each item lands and why.

Summary comparison table

Product	PFAS grade	Verdict
Maxfli Tour S Golf Balls	Excellent, 85/100	Synthetic rubber core with a surlyn or urethane cover
Maxfli Tour X Max Align Golf Balls	Excellent, 85/100	Rubber and polymer core with an ionomer cover
Maxfli StraightFli Graffiti Golf Balls	Excellent, 85/100	No water-repellent coating described
Vice Drip Golf Balls	Excellent, 85/100	Synthetic polymer core with a urethane cover
Nike Power Distance Long Golf Balls	Excellent, 85/100	Synthetic rubber core and cover
Nike Golf Ball	Excellent, 85/100	Elastomer core with a urethane cover
Nike Golf Ball Mix, 1 Dozen	Excellent, 85/100	Rubber and synthetic polymer construction
Mizuno Cabretta Leather Golf Glove	Excellent, 85/100	Cabretta leather with no water treatment described
Mizuno Comp Glove	Excellent, 85/100	Leather and synthetic leather with no repellent finish
FootJoy WeatherSof Golf Glove	Poor, 40/100	Cabretta leather with a water-resistant treatment
MacWet Micromesh Original Golf Rain Gloves	Poor, 40/100	Micromesh nylon with a DWR water-repellent finish
Bridgestone Golf Snedeker Tour E-Glove	Poor, 40/100	Synthetic leather and microfiber with a waterproof treatment
Bridgestone Golf E Glove	Poor, 40/100	Leather or fabric with a waterproof treatment
Bridgestone Men's Tourstage Golf Gloves	Poor, 40/100	Synthetic leather or polyurethane with a water-repellent finish
Bridgestone Golf Men's Tour Premium Golf Glove	Poor, 40/100	Leather palm with a treated textile backing
Nike Men's Dura Feel X Golf Glove	Poor, 40/100	Synthetic leather and microfiber with a water-resistant finish

How we graded this equipment

Every grade in this article is a model-based estimate built from publicly available materials disclosures, manufacturing descriptions and brand documentation, not a lab test performed by our team. A high score means lower concern based on reviewed sources, never PFAS-free and never safe. No product in this category carried published independent lab data and no brand here made a public no-PFAS statement we could record. Across the graded items the recorded concerns were dominated by PFAS in a DWR coating, described in several listings as a fluorinated water repellent, followed by coating degradation with microparticle shedding. One non-chemical hazard, bacterial or fungal growth in a used glove, is a hygiene question rather than a materials one. You can compare any specific item using our PFAS product finder.

The Excellent tier, 85 out of 100

Balls occupy most of this tier and they do it without trying. Maxfli Tour S Golf Balls are a synthetic rubber core under a surlyn or urethane cover, and the Vice Drip Golf Balls and Nike Power Distance Long Golf Balls follow the same pattern. Pros include that ball construction has no functional need for a repellent coating, so there is nothing for our model to flag. Cons include that no ball maker here publishes a PFAS statement, so this rests on materials description rather than a commitment, and a ball is a low contact-time item anyway.

Two gloves reach the same grade, and they are the interesting entries. Mizuno Cabretta Leather Golf Glove is cabretta leather with standard tanning and no water treatment described, and the Mizuno Comp Glove is leather and synthetic leather with no repellent finish. Pros include that an untreated leather glove is the one wearable item in this category that avoids the issue entirely. Cons include that untreated leather performs differently in rain, which is the trade-off the whole category is built around.

The Poor tier, 40 out of 100

Seven gloves share the bottom grade and every one of them is sold on wet-weather or all-weather performance.

MacWet Micromesh Original Golf Rain Gloves are the most explicit, recorded as micromesh nylon with a DWR water-repellent finish. Four Bridgestone gloves carry waterproof or water-repellent treatments across leather, synthetic leather and polyurethane constructions, and the Nike Men's Dura Feel X Golf Glove is synthetic leather and microfiber with a water-resistant finish.

The FootJoy WeatherSof Golf Glove deserves its own line because it is the direct counterpart to the Mizuno glove at the top. Both are cabretta leather. The FootJoy carries a water-resistant treatment and grades 40, the Mizuno does not and grades 85. There are no pros to highlight from a PFAS grading standpoint on the treated gloves. The con across all seven is the same, a repellent finish is the selling point and no brand names its chemistry.

What to avoid

• Gloves marketed as rain, all-weather, waterproof or water-repellent where the brand does not name the finish. That is every glove in the bottom tier here.
• Assuming leather settles it. Cabretta leather appears at both 85 and 40 in this data, separated only by whether a water treatment was applied.
• Worrying about the balls first. Most balls we graded sit at 85, and balls are not where this category's main concern lives.
• Reading a low grade as proof a glove contains PFAS. It reflects an undisclosed repellent finish, and no product here has published test data either way.

If you are looking at other treated sportswear, our rain jackets, outdoor and camping gear and waterproof winter gloves categories cover related products with their own grading, and the PFAS hazard page explains why durable water-repellent finishes attract scrutiny.

Our pick

Based on available materials and data, the Mizuno Cabretta Leather Golf Glove is our top pick at 85 out of 100, since it is the highest-graded wearable item here and the one most directly comparable to the treated gloves it beats. For balls, most graded models sit at 85, some Bridgestone and Callaway models grade 50 on an undescribed cover coating, and the Maxfli Tour S Golf Balls are representative. If you play in wet weather regularly, our data cannot point you to a rain glove we grade well, because the water-repellent finish that makes a rain glove work is the thing our model flags, and we would rather say that than name a least-bad option. These are estimates built from disclosed materials, not laboratory proof, and no product here is being called PFAS-free or safe by us.

FAQ

Are golf balls a PFAS concern?

Mostly not in our data. Most golf balls we graded sit at 85 out of 100, because ball construction uses rubber and synthetic elastomer cores under ionomer or urethane covers and none of those require a water-repellent treatment. A group of Bridgestone and Callaway balls grade 50, because their records describe a cover coating whose composition is not given. That reflects materials descriptions rather than laboratory testing, which no ball maker here has published.

Why do rain gloves grade so much worse than regular gloves?

Because the water repellency is added rather than inherent. Durable water-repellent finishes have historically been achieved with fluorinated chemistry, and when a brand describes a glove as water-repellent or waterproof without naming the finish, our model treats the chemistry as unresolved rather than assuming it is fluorine-free.

Is leather better than synthetic for this?

The material is not what separates the grades here. Cabretta leather appears at 85 out of 100 untreated and at 40 with a water-resistant treatment, so in our data the finish matters and the base material does not.

Should I be worried about health effects from a lower-graded glove?

Any discussion of PFAS and health in our guides describes association, not proven causation, and grades measure estimated chemical concern based on materials and disclosure, not a medical risk assessment for any individual. If you want to reduce potential exposure across treated textiles, cross-reference products using our PFAS product finder alongside categories like rain jackets.