PFAS25/ 100Poor
Overall7/ 100Bad
Poise Absorbency Pads

Poise · Period Pads

Poise Absorbency Pads

Poor

Skip until brand discloses waterproofing chemicals or certifies PFAS-free.

Verdict: SkipPFAS waterproofing concern outweighs moderate other risks; acceptable if brand commits to disclosure or you switch to certified alternatives.

Poise absorbency pads contain a waterproof backing whose coating chemistry is not publicly disclosed. No third-party verification available regarding PFAS content.

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

absorbent core with waterproof backing layer, composition unspecified

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 product received a Poor PFAS grade from independent assessment; Kimberly-Clark has not disclosed the specific polymer or coating used in the backing layer, leaving PFAS presence unresolved for consumers.

Source: ATSDR
45/ 100
⚠️

Skin irritation from absorbent core additives

Superabsorbent polymers in pads can occasionally cause localized irritation or rash in sensitive individuals, though this is not specific to Poise and occurs across the category. No major complaints linking Poise formulation to widespread dermatological issues are on record.

70/ 100
⚠️

Fragrance allergens (if product is scented variant)

Poise offers both unscented and lightly scented versions; scented variants may contain fragrance compounds that trigger contact dermatitis or allergic reaction in genital tissue, though ingredient lists do not itemize specific fragrance components.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

Microplastic or synthetic fiber migration

No documented cases of Poise pads shedding microplastics or synthetic fibers into the body have been reported, but the non-woven backing and core materials are synthetic and theoretically capable of degradation over extended wear.

95/ 100

Bleach residues or dioxin byproducts

Feminine hygiene pads are typically bleached during manufacture; modern standards limit dioxin formation, and no regulatory alerts specific to Poise or Kimberly-Clark bleaching practices have been issued.

95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Poise pads use an absorbent core (typically superabsorbent polymer and cellulose) topped with a waterproof backing layer. The backing composition is not publicly disclosed by Kimberly-Clark (parent company), making it impossible to rule out fluorinated water-repellent coatings as the source of the poor PFAS grade. The absorbent core itself is unlikely to contain PFAS, but the barrier layer design is the concern.

The brand's record and disclosure

Kimberly-Clark has not published ingredient transparency reports specific to Poise pads or disclosed whether their waterproof backing uses PFAS-based or PFAS-free chemistries. The company maintains general sustainability commitments but remains silent on per-fluorinated compounds in feminine hygiene products. No product-specific recalls or safety alerts have been issued for Poise pads, but lack of communication about a known hazard class is a credibility gap.

How it compares in its category

Most period-care products (Kotex, Tampax, Always) face the same waterproof-backing opacity issue. Brands explicitly certified PFAS-free or using mechanical/silicone waterproofing (Seventh Generation, Cora, Lola) are available at similar or slightly higher cost. Poise ranks lower in transparency relative to emerging competitors but is not an outlier in the mainstream market.

If you buy it

Store in a cool, dry place away from direct heat or humidity to prevent any potential breakdown of the backing layer. Change pads regularly per instructions (typically every 4-8 hours) to minimize skin contact duration. If you experience rashes, irritation, or unusual odor, discontinue and try an alternative with clearer waterproofing disclosure. Consider requesting Kimberly-Clark publicly commit to PFAS-free formulations or switch brands as pressure for industry transparency grows.

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
Poise 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.