PFAS25/ 100Poor
Overall13/ 100Bad
Nana Ultra Regular Sanitary Towels Moderate Flow

Nana · Period Pads

Nana Ultra Regular Sanitary Towels Moderate Flow

Poor

Lower concern, but waterproof layer composition unconfirmed by brand.

Verdict: SkipCellulose core with unconfirmed topsheet treatment poses low acute risk; PFAS concern warrants awareness but not avoidance.

Sanitary pads typically use cellulose cores with synthetic topsheets. Nana does not disclose PFAS status or waterproof treatment chemistry, raising moderate uncertainty despite lower inherent risk versus coated apparel.

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, likely aqueous or silicone topsheet treatment

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
⚠️

Topsheet polymer/treatment composition unknown

The absorbent topsheet is treated to prevent rewetting, but Nana does not disclose whether silicone, polyacrylate, or other agents are used; these are skin-contact materials and undisclosed formulations create uncertainty around irritant or sensitizer content.

70/ 100
⚠️

Contact dermatitis and skin irritation (generic)

Cellulose products are generally low-risk for allergic reaction, but additives in the topsheet and adhesive can trigger irritation in sensitive individuals; no published hypoallergenic testing data is available for this brand.

70/ 100
⚠️

Moisture retention and bacterial/fungal growth

All occlusive menstrual pads create a warm, moist microenvironment; improper wear duration or infrequent changes increases risk of bacterial overgrowth and odor, not a chemical hazard but a hygiene management issue.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

Chlorine or bleach residues in cellulose

Cellulose in period pads is typically bleached during manufacture; Nana does not disclose bleaching method. Elemental chlorine bleaching is largely phased out in EU production (where SCA operates), but ECF (elemental-chlorine-free) residues are a theoretical minor concern.

95/ 100

Synthetic fragrance or odor-control additives

This product is marketed as unscented; no fragrance allergens are listed or known to be present, but fragrances can be added to adhesive or topsheet without explicit labeling in many markets.

95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Nana Ultra Regular uses a cellulose-based absorbent core, a standard material across most menstrual pads that poses minimal chemical leaching risk under normal use. The topsheet (the layer touching skin) is typically treated with either silicone or aqueous-based agents to improve fluid distribution and prevent rewet. The exact composition of Nana's topsheet treatment is not publicly disclosed by the brand, which means the potential for irritant or allergenic residues cannot be ruled out, though cellulose products rarely trigger contact dermatitis in clinical testing.

The brand's record and disclosure

Nana (owned by SCA, a Swedish hygiene company) does not publicly disclose full material compositions or safety certifications for this product line on packaging or their website. The brand has no known recalls related to chemical contamination, but also maintains silence on PFAS use in the waterproofing layer, which is standard industry practice for most budget-tier period-care brands. No independent certifications such as Cradle to Cradle or standard allergen testing badges appear on this product.

How it compares in its category

Nana Ultra occupies the mainstream, affordable segment of the menstrual pad market. Compared to premium brands (Kotex, Always Infinity), it offers fewer material transparency guarantees and no published hypoallergenic testing; compared to budget alternatives, it is broadly similar in construction and risk profile. Organic or GOTS-certified period pads offer stricter chemical controls and full ingredient disclosure, but at significantly higher cost.

If you buy it

Store in a cool, dry location away from direct sunlight to prevent degradation of the topsheet polymer coating. Discontinue use immediately if you experience itching, burning, or rash and switch to a hypoallergenic alternative for one cycle to test whether the product is the cause. Replace the pad every 4-8 hours depending on flow to minimize bacterial growth and skin maceration; do not leave on overnight if you experience sensitivity. If you have a history of contact dermatitis, consider patch-testing a single use on a small skin area before full adoption.

What we don’t know

Basis
Model estimate, 62% 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.