Puma Everyday Running warmCELL Heat Insulation Running Gloves
Likely water-repellent coating treated. Puma discloses nothing about PFAS chemistry.
Running gloves with synthetic insulation and water-repellent coating typical of athletic gear. Puma makes no PFAS claims or disclosures, though water-repellent coating treatments commonly contain PFAS historically.
The better-graded swap
Top Flite
Top Flite XL Distance Golf Balls
85/100 safety
Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned Excellent.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Polyester/nylon with warmCELL synthetic insulation and likely water-repellent coating water-repellent finish
Lab data
No public lab test
You may also be interested in
Top-graded picks in the categories readers replace first, every one scored on the same rubric.
- polypropylene filter housing, carbon/sediment cartridge
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Bacterial growth in spent cartridges
3 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
Aquasure
Premier Series 75 GPD Under Sink Reverse Osmosis Water Filtration System
- RO membrane, carbon filters, stainless steel housing
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Bacterial and microbial growth in housing and filters
4 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
Avocado
Vegan Mattress
- organic cotton, natural latex, coconut coir, recycled steel coils
- The brand calls it PFAS-free, which we have not verified
- Heavy metals
2 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
What Puma Everyday Running Gloves is made of, ingredients and materials
These gloves combine polyester and nylon with synthetic warmCELL insulation (likely polyester-based hollow fiber or similar) plus a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish. The water-repellent coating is the primary concern, most athletic brands use PFAS-based chemistry (perfluorocarbon compounds) to achieve water and stain resistance, though Puma has not disclosed which type. Polyester and nylon themselves are stable under normal wear, but the water-repellent coating finish may shed microfibers or leach compounds, especially during washing and sweating.
What’s concerning
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement from the brand about PFAS in this product.
Category baseline
The starting point for this type of product, before anything specific to this product is counted.
Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
Water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.
PFAS
WarmCELL gloves almost certainly carry a water-repellent coating finish; Puma's silence on PFAS-based vs. fluorine-free chemistry means PFAS exposure risk cannot be ruled out. This is flagged separately as a PFAS hazard but warrants mention of coating durability and shedding potential during use and washing.
Source, ATSDR ↗Microfiber shedding from synthetic textiles
Polyester and nylon gloves release microfibers during wear and washing, particularly if the water-repellent coating breaks down or peels. Direct skin contact is low risk, but microfibers shed into water and the environment; intensity depends on wash frequency and mechanical stress.
Azo dyes in colorants
Puma does not disclose dye chemistry for this glove. Polyester colorants may include azo dyes, which can release carcinogenic amines if hydrolyzed under extreme conditions (not typical wear); risk is low for end-users but present in supply chain.
What’s reassuring
Formaldehyde / VOCs
No formaldehyde resin finishes are typical in modern athletic gloves; warmCELL and water-repellent coating coatings use hydrocarbon or fluorocarbon chemistry, not formaldehyde-based binders. This hazard is not expected for this product.
Source, ATSDR ↗Antimony in polyester
Polyester production sometimes involves antimony catalysts, but final glove material residues are typically below concern thresholds. No specific contamination is documented for Puma gloves or this product line.
How is this PFAS grade calculated?
The brand's record and disclosure
Puma has not published detailed information about its water-repellent coating chemistry or PFAS use in athletic gear. The brand has made some sustainability pledges but remains largely silent on chemical transparency compared to competitors like Patagonia or The North Face, which explicitly commit to PFAS-free water treatments. No major recalls or contamination incidents are documented for this product line. This silence means you cannot definitively confirm whether the water-repellent coating uses legacy PFAS, newer fluorine-free alternatives, or a blend.
How it compares in its category
Synthetic running gloves are industry standard; warmCELL insulation is mid-range quality for the category. Most athletic gloves in this price tier use some form of water-repellent coating treatment, and PFAS-based coatings remain dominant across brands, so Puma's approach is typical rather than unusual. Brands offering verifiable PFAS-free running gloves are fewer and often cost 20-30% more. If water-repellent coating avoidance is a priority, you would need to seek certified PFAS-free or wax-based alternatives (rarer and less durable).
If you buy it
Wash separately in cool water to minimize microfiber shedding and water-repellent coating breakdown. Avoid high heat (no dryer) and do not machine dry, as heat degrades synthetic coatings and may increase leaching. Inspect for peeling, cracking, or degradation after 50-100 washes; replace if the water-repellent coating visibly breaks down, as exposed insulation loses function and durability. Store dry to prevent mold growth in the insulation. Hand-washing extends water-repellent coating life significantly compared to machine washing.
What is not known about PFAS in this product?
- Basis
- Model estimate, 45% confidence, not a lab result
- Lab test
- None on record for this exact product
- Brand statement
- Puma has made a specific claim
Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.
What are the PFAS-free alternatives to Puma Everyday Running warmCELL Heat Insulation Running Gloves?
- Steel clubheads, graphite shafts, rubber grips
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Graphite shaft resin degradation and fiber exposure
3 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
- Cabretta leather, likely tannin-tanned
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Heavy metals
4 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
- leather or synthetic leather with cotton lining
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Heavy metals
4 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
Find an alternative on AmazonMore golf balls & equipment 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.