PFAS25/ 100Poor
Overall13/ 100Bad
Nana Good Night Maxi Thick Sanitary Pads 7 Count

Nana · Period Pads

Nana Good Night Maxi Thick Sanitary Pads 7 Count

Poor

Limited transparency on materials and waterproofing treatments used.

Verdict: SkipCellulose core is safe; poor PFAS grade and silent brand stance on waterproofing treatments warrant cautious use pending transparency.

Sanitary pads typically use waterproof backsheets and coatings whose compositions are rarely disclosed. Nana provides no public PFAS or material transparency; standard industry practice creates moderate concern.

The safe swap

OC BON Ultra Thin Wings Sanitary Pads Medium 4P

OB

OC BON Ultra Thin Wings Sanitary Pads Medium 4P

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, absorbent core, unspecified top sheet coating

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

The top sheet and backing layer coatings are not disclosed. Waterproofing treatments in budget-tier pads sometimes use Teflon-type coating, acrylates, or silicones; this product's treatment is unknown and not independently tested in public records.

Source: ATSDR
70/ 100
🫧

Microplastics

Polyethylene and polypropylene backings and top sheets can shed microparticles over time, especially with folding, storage, or friction. No data is available on Nana's polymer quality or shedding rates, but this is a general concern for all single-use plastic-backed pads.

Source: EPA
70/ 100
⚠️

Skin sensitizers in adhesives or surfactants

Adhesives securing the pad to underwear and coating surfactants (used to aid water repellency) are not specified. Some users report irritation from conventional pad adhesives, though individual sensitivity varies and no specific adverse reactions to Nana pads are documented.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

Chlorine residue from bleaching

Cellulose cores are often bleached during manufacture. Nana does not disclose bleaching methods or residual chlorine levels. Standard industry practices suggest minimal residue, but unbleached or oxygen-bleached alternatives exist if this is a concern.

95/ 100

Fragrance or antimicrobial additives

The product name 'Good Night' does not indicate added fragrance, and no fragrance allergens or antimicrobial treatments are listed on available packaging or retailer descriptions. This is a low-risk signal, but ingredient transparency would confirm absence.

95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Nana Good Night Maxi uses a cellulose-based absorbent core, which is a standard, non-toxic material in period pads. The concern here is the unspecified top sheet coating and waterproofing layer. Most maxi pads use polyethylene film for the backing and a polypropylene or cellulose non-woven top sheet, but the coating chemistry (whether it includes waterproofing agents, surfactants, or other additives) is not disclosed. This opacity is significant because waterproofing treatments often rely on Teflon-type coating, acrylates, or other water-resistant polymers that may release microparticles or volatiles.

The brand's record and disclosure

Nana is owned by SCA, a large hygiene manufacturer with no known public commitments to PFAS avoidance or full material transparency in period products. The brand has not published ingredient lists, certification data, or chemical testing results for this product line. No recalls or safety incidents are on record for Nana pads in major databases, but the silent stance on materials, especially waterproofing, suggests limited third-party scrutiny or voluntary disclosure practices typical of more transparent competitors.

How it compares in its category

Most conventional period pads share similar cellulose cores and plastic backings, so Nana is typical in material class. However, brands like Seventh Generation, Kotex U, and others have begun publishing PFAS or chemical-free claims. Nana offers no such assurance, placing it in the middle-to-lower tier for transparency. The 'maxi thick' format suggests higher absorbency, which may correlate with denser polymer backings but does not necessarily increase chemical risk if materials are safe.

If you buy it

Use normally; no special precautions are required beyond standard pad hygiene. Change every 4 to 8 hours to prevent bacterial overgrowth and odor. Store in a cool, dry place away from direct heat or sunlight to avoid degradation of the plastic backing. If you experience skin irritation, redness, or rash after use, discontinue and switch to a tested alternative, as individual sensitivity to coating additives or residues can vary. Consider requesting the safety data sheet (SDS) from the retailer if available.

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
Nana 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.