PFAS25/ 100Poor
Overall17/ 100Bad
U by Kotex Ultra Thin Pads

Kotex · Period Pads

U by Kotex Ultra Thin Pads

Poor

Waterproof coating unspecified; PFAS risk unclear without disclosure.

Verdict: SkipPFAS waterproof coating unspecified and brand silent on disclosure; no other major hazards documented, but limited transparency warrants cautious use.

U by Kotex does not publicly disclose PFAS status or waterproof treatment chemicals. Period pad backsheets typically use water-resistant coatings that may contain PFAS, though specifics remain undisclosed.

The safe swap

TAMPAX PEARL ULTRA ABSORBENCY*18 COUNT

Tampax

TAMPAX PEARL ULTRA ABSORBENCY*18 COUNT

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

cellulose/rayon with proprietary absorbent core and waterproof barrier

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
♾️

PFAS

Kotex has not disclosed the chemical identity of the waterproof barrier layer. Many conventional pad manufacturers use fluorinated polymers (PFAS-containing) for this function; without testing or disclosure, risk cannot be ruled out.

Source: ATSDR
70/ 100
⚠️

Bacterial or mold growth from moisture retention

If a pad is worn longer than recommended or stored in a warm, humid environment after opening, natural conditions favor bacterial growth; this is inherent to any absorbent pad design and not specific to Kotex formulation.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

Bleach residue (chlorine)

Kotex has disclosed chlorine bleach use in some pad lines for cellulose whitening, though U by Kotex Ultra Thin does not list this. No residual chlorine is expected in the final product, but the brand's vague sourcing makes full certainty impossible.

95/ 100

Fragrance or fragrance allergens

U by Kotex Ultra Thin is advertised as fragrance-free on packaging. No known fragrance allergens documented for this line, unlike scented Kotex variants.

95/ 100

Azo dyes in printed graphics

The external printed designs on the pad wrapper are not intended for skin contact. No hazard has been reported; standard practice ensures printing inks do not migrate to absorbent layers.

95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

U by Kotex Ultra Thin uses a cellulose and rayon absorbent core (wood-derived fibers) with a proprietary waterproof barrier layer and adhesive backing. The rayon is typically viscose processed from wood pulp, which is safe in end-use form but the barrier coating, likely plastic-based to prevent leakage, is where PFAS chemicals are often added to impart water repellency. The absorbent materials themselves (cellulose, rayon, superabsorbent polymers like sodium polyacrylate) have no established safety concern for vaginal contact in this application.

The brand's record and disclosure

Kotex (owned by Kimberly-Clark) has not publicly disclosed whether their waterproof barrier contains PFAS or fluorinated compounds, nor have they published third-party testing or certification (e.g., BlueSign, GOTS, or OEKO-TEX) for period products. The brand has faced scrutiny for undisclosed fragrance and chlorine bleach use in some pad lines, though U by Kotex Ultra Thin does not list added fragrance. No recall history exists for this specific product. Their silence on PFAS and barrier coating chemistry is notable given increasing consumer concern.

How it compares in its category

Major competitors like Seventh Generation Free & Clear, Organyc, and Cora explicitly state PFAS-free formulations or publish material safety data; Kotex has not. U by Kotex Ultra Thin is priced as a mainstream, non-premium option (lower cost than organic or eco-certified brands), which correlates with less rigorous disclosure but also no proven hazard above standard period pads. Among conventional pads, it sits in the middle range for transparency; some competitors (like Always) are equally opaque, while others lead on disclosure.

If you buy it

Use as directed; there is no evidence of hazard from normal vaginal contact with this pad. Do not incinerate pads at home or in uncontrolled settings, as burning waterproof coatings may release fluorinated gases if PFAS is present (though municipal waste incineration is designed to handle this). Replace pads every 4-8 hours depending on flow; prolonged wear increases bacterial overgrowth risk unrelated to the pad material. If you have vulvar sensitivity, patch-test first or switch to a fragrance-free, PFAS-transparent brand (e.g., Seventh Generation Free) to isolate any reaction.

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.