PFAS25/ 100Poor
Overall3/ 100Bad
Icon Intimates & Sleepwear | Icon Undies Hi-Waist Period Underwear Panties Size Xs Beige (For Moderate Leaks) | Color: C

Icon Underwear · Period Underwear

Icon Intimates & Sleepwear | Icon Undies Hi-Waist Period Underwear Panties Size Xs Beige (For Moderate Leaks) | Color: C

Poor

Period underwear likely contains water-resistant coating; PFAS status unclear from brand.

Verdict: SkipCotton blend with undisclosed water-resistant coating carries PFAS uncertainty; otherwise low-risk if laundered carefully and replaced regularly.

Icon does not disclose PFAS or material treatment details. Moderate-leak period underwear typically uses water-repellent coating finishes that may contain PFAS, though some brands now use PFAS-free alternatives. No independent certification available.

The safe swap

Modibodi Basic Mid-Rise Period Brief

Modibodi

Modibodi Basic Mid-Rise Period Brief

100/100 safety

100Excellent

Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned Excellent.

Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.

Material

Cotton blend with water-resistant treatment (likely water-repellent coating finish)

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

What’s concerning

♾️

Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment

water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.

65/ 100
♾️

Category baseline

period care is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

75/ 100
♾️

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

85/ 100
♾️

Fluorocarbon-based water-resistant coating (water-repellent coating finish)

Water-resistant intimates almost certainly use a water-repellent coating finish; Icon does not disclose whether it is Teflon-type coating/fluorocarbon or fluorine-free. Fluorocarbon-based finishes are known persistent bioaccumulative substances, though dermal absorption from fabric is lower than ingestion risk.

20/ 100
🫧

Coating degradation and microfiber shedding over time

water-repellent coating coatings degrade with washing and wear, potentially releasing microparticles. With frequent laundering typical of period underwear, coating breakdown is expected within 12 months, though risk to wearer is minor compared to environmental persistence of released PFAS.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

Azo dyes in colored textile

No public record of Icon using problematic azo dyes or failing dyeing standards. Beige colorant is typically low-risk, but undisclosed material sourcing means compliance with textile dye safety limits (EU standard limits, formaldehyde) is unverified.

95/ 100
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Some cotton blends receive formaldehyde-based wrinkle-resist or antimicrobial finishes. Icon does not disclose whether a formaldehyde resin is present. This is distinct from the water-repellent coating and is typically low-concentration in intimate wear but unconfirmed here.

Source: ATSDR
95/ 100

Synthetic fiber component in blend

If the blend includes polyester or nylon, these are generally safe unless treated with antimony catalysts or flame retardants; neither is documented for Icon's products, and period underwear does not typically use flame retardants.

95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

This product is a cotton-blend fabric with a water-resistant (likely water-repellent coating, or water-repellent coating) finish applied to create the leak-barrier function. water-repellent coating finishes historically used Teflon-type coating or fluorocarbon-based chemistry, though some manufacturers have shifted to fluorine-free alternatives; Icon's silence on this choice is the core concern. The absorbent layer underneath is typically cotton or a cotton-synthetic mix, which itself poses minimal chemical risk if not treated with formaldehyde resins or problematic dyes.

The brand's record and disclosure

Icon Underwear does not publicly disclose material sourcing, water-repellent coating chemistry, or chemical testing results on their website or product labels. No third-party certifications (Oeko-Tex, GOTS, bluesign) appear on this product. The brand has not published a stance on PFAS or fluorocarbon use. This silence is typical of smaller intimate-apparel brands but leaves consumers without transparency on the exact formulation of the water-resistant layer.

How it compares in its category

Period underwear as a category has exploded in recent years; competitors like Thinx, Knix, and Modibodi vary widely in transparency and material choice. Thinx faced lawsuits over PFAS concerns but has since published testing results and shifted formulations. Icon's lack of public testing or reformulation claims places it in the middle-to-lower transparency tier. Most period-underwear brands still use some form of water-resistant coating, making Icon not an outlier, but also not a leader in disclosure.

If you buy it

Wash in cold water and avoid fabric softeners or bleach, which can degrade the water-resistant coating and potentially mobilize any residual coating chemicals. Hang-dry or tumble-dry on low; high heat can degrade synthetic fibers and any finish. Replace every 6-12 months, as the coating degrades with wear and washing. If possible, request material specification or testing documentation from Icon before purchase; consumer pressure for transparency can drive brand accountability.

What we don’t know

Basis
Model estimate, 45% confidence, not a lab result
Lab test
None on record for this exact product
Brand statement
Icon Underwear has made none

Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.

Safer alternatives in Period Underwear

Modibodi Basic Mid-Rise Period Brief

Modibodi

Basic Mid-Rise Period Brief

organic cotton blend with water-resistant coating

PFAS Grade100Excellent
Overall Grade92Excellent

Water-resistant coating degradation

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Microbial growth and odor with improper care

Limited concern

70

Lower concern. MADE SAFE certified, PFAS-free claimed and tested.

MADE SAFE

Lab test found no PFAS

The Lola High Waist Period Underwear

Lola

The Lola High Waist Period Underwear

organic cotton with water-resistant treatment

PFAS Grade100Excellent
Overall Grade92Excellent
🫧

Water-resistant coating degradation and microplastic shedding

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Allergen sensitivity to cotton or treatment additives

Limited concern

70

Lower concern; PFAS-free certified, organic cotton base.

MADE SAFE CertifiedOEKO-TEX Standard 100

Lab test found no PFAS

Organic Cotton Period Underwear

Lola

Organic Cotton Period Underwear

organic cotton with gusseted absorbent layer

PFAS Grade70Good
Overall Grade58Good
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Limited concern

70
🎨

Azo dyes and color fastness

Limited concern

70
🫧

Microplastic shedding

Limited concern

70

Lower concern. Organic cotton core, no water-resistant treatment disclosed.

Risky category by default

More period underwear 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.