PFAS25/ 100Poor
Overall0/ 100Bad
Poise Ultimate Absorbency Incontinence Pads

Poise · Period Pads

Poise Ultimate Absorbency Incontinence Pads

Poor

Skip until brand confirms waterproof backing composition.

Verdict: SkipPFAS in backing is a documented concern; cellulose core is safe but brand transparency is poor. Use only if no PFAS-tested alternative available.

Incontinence pads require waterproof barriers that historically used PFAS. Poise does not disclose backing chemistry or PFAS status, creating moderate concern for a product with prolonged skin contact.

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 cellulose core with synthetic polymer waterproof backing

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

Fluorinated polymer backings in incontinence products are known to contain PFAS; Poise has not publicly disclosed backing chemistry or committed to PFAS-free alternatives, making presence probable.

Source: ATSDR
20/ 100
⚠️

Dermal irritation from synthetic backing

Some users report localized skin irritation, redness, or contact dermatitis from prolonged wear; synthetic polymer backings can trap moisture and heat, creating conditions for maceration, particularly in summer or with occlusive wear.

45/ 100
🫧

Cellulose degradation and microfiber shedding

With repeated compression or friction during wear, cellulose fibers may break down and migrate onto skin; no specific reports for Poise pads documented, but inherent to soft cellulose materials in contact wear.

70/ 100
⚠️

Adhesive residue on skin

Poise pads use tackifiers in side-flap adhesives; occasional reports of sticky residue, irritation, or allergic contact dermatitis from adhesive compounds, particularly with sensitive skin or adhesive sensitivity.

45/ 100
⚠️

Odor-control additive tolerability

Poise Ultimate includes fragrance and antimicrobial additives to reduce odor; some users report skin sensitivity or allergic reaction to these compounds, especially with prolonged or frequent exposure in genital-adjacent areas.

70/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Poise Ultimate uses a cellulose-based absorbent core (standard across this category) paired with a synthetic polymer waterproof backing layer. The backing is where PFAS concern concentrates, as waterproofing in incontinence pads typically relies on fluorinated compounds to repel moisture. The cellulose core itself carries minimal chemical risk, but prolonged skin contact with a PFAS-containing backing creates potential for dermal absorption, particularly in people with compromised skin barriers or extended wear times.

The brand's record and disclosure

Poise (Kimberly-Clark) has not publicly committed to phasing PFAS from incontinence pad backings or disclosed specific backing chemistry. The brand has not pursued certifications like OEKO-TEX or published third-party testing for PFAS presence. Compared to some competitors, Poise's transparency on absorbent product composition lags; the silence on waterproof layer formulation is notable given industry-wide PFAS scrutiny since 2020.

How it compares in its category

Most incontinence pads use similar cellulose-plus-polymer-backing construction, making this a category-wide issue rather than a Poise-specific flaw. However, brands like Depending (Essity) and some store brands have begun disclosing backing materials more openly. Poise's lack of transparency puts it at a disadvantage for consumers specifically seeking PFAS-free options. Cloth or reusable incontinence pads eliminate the PFAS backing question entirely but require laundering.

If you buy it

Rotate products: do not rely on Poise pads as your only absorbent product for continuous high-volume use, as prolonged skin exposure to PFAS-containing backing increases cumulative risk. Replace pads every 4-6 hours to minimize contact time, especially if you have irritated or compromised skin. Store in a cool, dry place away from direct heat (heat can enhance PFAS migration). If skin irritation develops, discontinue immediately and contact your healthcare provider.

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.