Puma Ladies Monoline Performance Golf Glove
Golf glove with unclear water-repellent coating. Brand provides no PFAS details.
Golf gloves use leather and synthetic materials with water-resistant treatment. Puma does not disclose PFAS avoidance, and specific water-repellent coating chemistry is unknown. Leather poses lower risk than Teflon-family coating coatings.
The better-graded swap
Dunlop
Dunlop Jd Tour Golf Balls In The Original Package 2 Dozen Urethane
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
Leather palm with synthetic backing, water-resistant treatment
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 Ladies Monoline Golf Glove is made of, ingredients and materials
This glove combines a leather palm (typically cow or synthetic leather) with synthetic backing, likely polyester or nylon. Leather itself is a processed animal hide and does not inherently release problematic chemicals during normal use. The synthetic backing provides structure and moisture-wicking; the real question is the water-resistant finish applied to both layers, which may contain PFAS-based or PFAS-free durable water repellents (DWRs). Without Puma's specific disclosure, the exact water-repellent coating chemistry remains unknown.
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
Water-resistant golf gloves almost always receive a water-repellent coating finish; Puma does not disclose whether this is PFAS-based or PFAS-free. Typical industry assumption is mixed, with some products using legacy PFAS and others newer alternatives. Contact Puma directly to confirm if this is a personal concern.
Source, ATSDR ↗Microplastics
Prolonged wear and washing may cause minor shedding of synthetic fibers from the backing. This is typical for any synthetic-backed apparel and not specific to Puma. Environmental concern exceeds direct consumer health risk in this case.
Source, EPA ↗What’s reassuring
Azo dyes in synthetic backing
No specific recalls or hazard warnings for Puma golf gloves exist on public record regarding azo dye use. Puma adheres to standard apparel industry dye regulations in most markets. Risk is low but not zero; skin contact with new gloves is minimal and typically brief.
Leather tanning residues (chromium III)
Most commercial leather gloves use chromium III tanning, which has lower concern at typical residual levels. Chromium VI (carcinogenic) is restricted in leather production across regulated markets. No specific contamination alerts exist for Puma leather goods in available records.
Formaldehyde / VOCs
Golf glove synthetic backings are not typically treated with formaldehyde-based resins, which are more common in woven textiles. No known incidents reported for this product category. Risk is negligible for this application.
Source, ATSDR ↗How is this PFAS grade calculated?
The brand's record and disclosure
Puma has not publicly committed to PFAS phase-out or disclosed specific water-repellent coating chemistries in apparel lines as of recent records. The brand maintains general sustainability messaging but lacks detailed chemical transparency comparable to leaders in the field. No major recalls or documented chemical hazard incidents specific to Puma golf gloves are on public record. Puma does not routinely publish restricted substance lists specific to individual product SKUs.
How it compares in its category
Golf gloves are a lower-volume, specialized segment; most competitors (Callaway, TaylorMade, Titleist) also do not disclose water-repellent coating type. Leather-palm gloves are generally considered lower-risk than fully synthetic performance gloves because leather off-gassing is minimal. Water-resistant treatments are standard across the category, so Puma's opacity here is typical rather than exceptional. If PFAS-free water-repellent coating matters to you, this product offers no assurance over competitors unless you contact Puma directly.
If you buy it
Wash the glove by hand in cool water before first use to reduce any residual dyes or finishes. Store in a cool, dry place away from direct heat or sunlight to prevent leather cracking and synthetic backing degradation. Avoid machine washing and high heat, which can compromise both leather and water-resistant coating. Replace when the palm loses grip texture or backing begins to peel; typical lifespan is one to two golf seasons with regular use.
What is not known about PFAS in this product?
- Basis
- Model estimate, 62% 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 Ladies Monoline Performance Golf Glove?
- 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.