PFAS25/ 100Poor
Overall0/ 100Bad
U by Kotex Clean & Secure Ultra Thin Pads

Kotex · Period Pads

U by Kotex Clean & Secure Ultra Thin Pads

Poor

Skip until Kotex discloses waterproof layer chemistry; fluorinated coatings often used.

Verdict: SkipPFAS in waterproof layer is primary concern; nonwoven cellulose base is safe, but full backing chemistry undisclosed, use if accessible alternatives unavailable.

Waterproof backing prevents leaks, a function historically filled by PFAS-based treatments. Kotex doesn't claim PFAS-free status or provide verification.

The safe swap

O.b Pro Comfort Super Plus 16 pad

OB

O.b Pro Comfort Super Plus 16 pad

70/100 safety

70Good

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

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

Material

Nonwoven fibers (cellulose/synthetic blend) with waterproof backing layer, composition not fully disclosed

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

What’s concerning

♾️

Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment

Water-repellent treatments have historically contained PFAS chemicals.

65/ 100
♾️

Category baseline

PFAS exposure happens more often with clothing products.

75/ 100
♾️

No PFAS disclosure

The company has not publicly discussed PFAS in this product.

85/ 100
♾️

PFAS

Waterproof backing composition not disclosed; fluorinated polymers are standard industry practice for this function, creating high probability of PFAS presence. No brand statement rules this out.

Source: ATSDR
20/ 100
🫧

Microplastic shedding from degraded nonwoven fibers

Nonwoven synthetic-cellulose blends can shed fibers if repeatedly wetted and flexed; no specific Kotex testing is public, but fiber loss from period pads is a recognized concern in textile microdebris literature.

70/ 100
⚠️

Bacterial colonization if not changed regularly

All absorbent pads create a moist environment; failure to change within 8 hours increases toxic shock syndrome and vulvovaginal infection risk, this is not unique to Kotex but applies universally to the product type.

45/ 100
⚠️

Skin irritation from adhesive or fragrance

Some Kotex pads contain fragrance; adhesive systems can trigger contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals. Specific formulation data for this Ultra Thin variant is not disclosed, so individual tolerance varies.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

⛏️

Heavy metals

No public recalls or testing data implicates azo dyes, lead, or cadmium in Kotex period pads. Nonwoven fibers are not typically dyed in this category.

Source: FDA
95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

U by Kotex Ultra Thin pads use a nonwoven cellulose-synthetic fiber blend as the absorbent core, which is a standard and generally safe material class for period products. The waterproof backing layer, the critical component, is not fully disclosed by the brand; industry practice often employs fluorinated polymers (Teflon-type coating or similar) to achieve waterproofing, which introduces PFAS risk. Nonwoven fibers themselves do not pose established hazards like formaldehyde or heavy metals at levels of concern in this application, but the opaque backing chemistry is the weak point.

The brand's record and disclosure

Kotex has not publicly committed to PFAS-free formulations or disclosed the specific chemistry of waterproof backing layers across its product lines. The brand has received no major safety recalls for period pads in recent years, but maintains a pattern of minimal transparency regarding chemical composition compared to competitors like Seventh Generation or Cora, which explicitly market PFAS-free alternatives. Kotex's parent company Kimberly-Clark has faced broader scrutiny over plastic and PFAS use in disposable products but has not issued category-specific pledges for menstrual care.

How it compares in its category

This product sits in the mid-tier of conventional pads: more affordable than premium organic or indie brands, but with less transparency than certified PFAS-free competitors. Comparable mainstream options (Tampax, Always, Stayfree) face identical backing-layer opacity issues; however, brands like Cora, Seventh Generation, and Rael explicitly certify PFAS absence and disclose full ingredient lists. If PFAS exposure is a priority, this product offers no competitive advantage and falls behind the growing market segment of fluorine-free pads.

If you buy it

Standard pad hygiene applies: change every 4-8 hours to reduce bacterial overgrowth risk and skin irritation. Store in a cool, dry place; do not expose to direct heat or sunlight, as cellulose blends can degrade and microplastic shedding may increase, though this is not documented as a specific risk for Kotex pads. If you notice persistent irritation, odor, or rash, discontinue and consult a gynecologist, some individuals react to fragrance or materials in the backing layer. Consider switching to an explicitly PFAS-disclosed brand if available in your price range.

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
Kotex has made none

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

Safer alternatives in Period Pads

O.b Pro Comfort Super Plus 16 pad

OB

O.b Pro Comfort Super Plus 16 pad

rayon/viscose, cotton, and gelling polymers

PFAS Grade70Good
Overall Grade52Good
🫧

Microplastic shedding or degradation

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Irritation or allergic sensitization from adhesive or synthetic fibers

Moderate concern

45
⚠️

Bacterial growth or contamination from prolonged moisture

Limited concern

70

Lower concern. Typical period pad materials lack PFAS triggers.

Risky category by default

OB / Maternity Pad Maxi Super Absorbency NON241279

OB

/ Maternity Pad Maxi Super Absorbency NON241279

cellulose, polyethylene, absorbent core (typical period pad materials)

PFAS Grade70Good
Overall Grade44Poor
⚠️

Absorbent polymer (sodium polyacrylate) allergic sensitization

Limited concern

70
🫧

Polyethylene microplastic shedding

Limited concern

70

Bacterial colonization from prolonged wear

High concern

20

Lower concern, typical pad materials rarely require PFAS treatments.

Risky category by default

OC BON Ultra Thin Wings Sanitary Pads Medium 4P

OB

OC BON Ultra Thin Wings Sanitary Pads Medium 4P

Cellulose, nonwoven synthetics, adhesives

PFAS Grade70Good
Overall Grade62Good
⚠️

Adhesive contact sensitivity

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Bleaching residues in cellulose

Limited concern

70

Lower concern. No PFAS-prone materials publicly identified.

Risky category by default

More period pads 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.