Puma Women's Sport Performance Glove
Performance glove likely treated with water-repellent coating but brand won't discuss PFAS.
Polyester and spandex sport glove gets moisture-wicking water-repellent coating finish of unknown makeup. Puma offers no PFAS transparency or testing results.
The better-graded swap
Eastside Golf
Eastside Golf Blue Left Hand Swingman Golf Glove
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, spandex with moisture-wicking water-repellent coating 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 Women's Sport Performance Glove is made of, ingredients and materials
These gloves are primarily polyester with spandex (elastane) blended for stretch and fit. The moisture-wicking water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) treatment is the functional layer that sheds sweat and rain; this finish is typically applied to polyester fabrics post-manufacture. Polyester itself is stable during wear, but the water-repellent coating chemical system, whether PFAS-based or alternative, is where chemical risk concentrates. Spandex is generally inert but can degrade under high heat and UV exposure.
What’s concerning
Category baseline
The starting point for this type of product, before anything specific to this product is counted.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement from the brand about PFAS in this product.
Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
Water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.
water-repellent coating chemical coating (likely fluorinated)
Moisture-wicking sports gloves routinely receive fluorinated water-repellent coating treatments. Puma does not disclose chemistry. Skin contact risk is low during wear, but residues may be released in first washing and microfiber shedding in final disposal.
Azo dyes in polyester colorants
Puma does not certify these gloves to restricted-substance standards (Bluesign, etc.). Polyester textiles can contain azo dyes that release aromatic amines under hydrolysis or sweat contact; risk is modest but documented in uncertified athletic wear.
Formaldehyde / VOCs
Polyester-blended sportswear sometimes receives formaldehyde-based finishes for mildew resistance, especially in moisture-wicking lines. No independent test data on this product exists; brand silence suggests no special formulation to avoid it.
Source, ATSDR ↗Microplastic shedding
Polyester garments shed synthetic microfibers during washing and wear, especially when elastane is present. This glove will contribute to microplastic load in wastewater; washing in cold water and less frequent machine washing reduce release slightly.
What’s reassuring
Antimony in polyester fiber
Antimony trioxide is used as a catalyst in standard polyester production but typically binds tightly in the polymer chain. Migration into skin during normal wear is extremely low; this is not a documented concern for athletic gloves.
How is this PFAS grade calculated?
The brand's record and disclosure
Puma has not publicly committed to PFAS phase-out in technical apparel as of available records, and the company does not disclose water-repellent coating chemistry on consumer-facing product pages. The brand has faced scrutiny for supply-chain labor and environmental practices, but specific chemical safety certifications (Bluesign, GOTS, etc.) are not uniformly listed for sports glove lines. Absence of certification or transparency is a weakness for performance wear where chemical treatments are standard.
How it compares in its category
Most mass-market sports gloves (Nike, Adidas, generic athletic brands) use similar polyester-spandex blends with water-repellent coating treatments; this product is compositionally typical, not an outlier. Premium alternatives like Patagonia now market PFAS-free water-repellent finishes, though at higher cost. Budget and mid-market brands rarely disclose water-repellent coating type, making Puma's silence standard practice rather than exceptional negligence. Performance gloves overall carry higher chemical treatment density than basic cotton gloves.
If you buy it
Wash gloves in cool water (below 60 degrees Celsius) before first wear to reduce loose chemical residues; warm or hot water can accelerate water-repellent coating degradation and may increase leaching. Avoid chlorine bleach and fabric softeners, which break down water-repellent finishes. Air-dry only; machine drying degrades spandex and may volatilize treatment chemicals. Replace when elasticity fails or water-repellent coating beading visibly diminishes (typically 1-2 years of regular use); worn-out water-repellent coating may shed microparticles.
What is not known about PFAS in this product?
- Basis
- Model estimate, 52% 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 Women's Sport Performance 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.