Tommy Hilfiger · Waterproof Sports Undergarments
Tommy Hilfiger Men's TH Performance Lightweight Polo
Performance polos often use PFAS-based water-repellent coating. Tommy Hilfiger stays silent on this.
This performance polo likely has water-repellent coating and stain-resistant treatments common to the category, which often contain PFAS. Tommy Hilfiger provides no chemical disclosure or test results.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
polyester blend with water-repellent coating/stain-resistant finish
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
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 Tommy Hilfiger Men's TH Lightweight Polo is made of, ingredients and materials
This polo is a polyester blend (likely 60-100% polyester with cotton or elastane) treated with a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish. Polyester itself is chemically stable during wear, but the water-repellent coating is the concern, most performance-grade water repellents use Teflon-type coating-based or PFAS chemistries to bond durable hydrophobic properties. Tommy Hilfiger does not publicly disclose which water-repellent coating agent is used, leaving the PFAS profile opaque. The blend may also contain antimony as a polyester catalyst and trace heavy metals in synthetic dyes.
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 (water-repellent coating) coating - undisclosed chemistry
Performance polos routinely use PFAS-based water-repellent coating (fluorocarbon or Teflon-type coating systems). Tommy Hilfiger does not disclose the water-repellent coating agent, so PFAS presence is not ruled out. Exposure during wear is low if finish is intact, but washing and aging increase shedding into water.
What’s reassuring
Antimony in polyester
Polyester synthesis often uses antimony as a catalyst. Residual antimony in finished fabric is typically <100 ppm and not considered a migration risk during normal wear. No recalls or health reports tied to Tommy Hilfiger polos on this basis.
Heavy metals
Polyester dyes may contain trace lead, cadmium, or chrome. EU and US apparel regulations limit migration; Tommy Hilfiger as a major brand is subject to these standards. No substantiated incidents reported for this brand.
Source, FDA ↗Formaldehyde / VOCs
Easy-care or wrinkle-resistant finishes on polyester sometimes use formaldehyde-based crosslinkers. Tommy Hilfiger does not advertise wrinkle-resistance for this polo, so formaldehyde use is unlikely, but vendor sourcing is not transparent.
Source, ATSDR ↗Azo dyes (carcinogenic metabolites)
Azo dyes that cleave into carcinogenic amines are banned or restricted in EU and US apparel. Tommy Hilfiger complies with apparel color safety standards as a major brand, but specific dye chemistry is not disclosed.
How is this PFAS grade calculated?
The brand's record and disclosure
Tommy Hilfiger is owned by PVH Corp, which has committed to phasing fluorinated water repellents in some apparel lines but has not fully transparent reporting on individual product lines or full supply chain PFAS use. The brand does not publish chemical disclosure databases for performance polos. No major recalls or substantiated health incidents tied to Tommy Hilfiger apparel are on public record. The silence on water-repellent coating chemistry is typical for the mid-market fashion apparel sector but represents a disclosure gap.
How it compares in its category
Performance polos from major brands (Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Polo Ralph Lauren) commonly use water-repellent coating finishes and rarely disclose PFAS status. Tommy Hilfiger's pricing and market position suggest standard industrial water-repellent coating rather than premium fluorine-free alternatives. Brands offering explicit PFAS-free performance wear (e.g., Patagonia, some outdoor specialists) are less common in this category. This product is middle-of-road for the category in terms of transparency and likely chemical profile.
If you buy it
Wash in cold water before first wear to reduce residual finishing chemicals. Avoid high heat (no dryer, or low heat only) because heat can mobilize water-repellent coating coatings and any fluorinated residues. Wash separately or with like colors to limit dye bleeding. The water-repellent coating will degrade over 20-50 washes; re-treating is optional and may reintroduce PFAS, so plain rewashing presents lower concern for PFAS exposure. Do not dry clean, as solvents may strip the finish unpredictably.
What is not known about PFAS in this product?
- Basis
- Model estimate, 35% confidence, not a lab result
- Lab test
- None on record for this exact product
- Brand statement
- Tommy Hilfiger has made none
Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.
What are the PFAS-free alternatives to Tommy Hilfiger Men's TH Performance Lightweight Polo?
- Cotton-blend knit jersey, uncoated
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Azo dyes and synthetic colorants
3 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
Find an alternative on Amazon
- cotton jersey, no applied finish
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Azo dyes and colorant residues
2 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
Find an alternative on Amazon
- 100% cotton jersey knit, untreated
- We found no PFAS statement from the brand
- Azo dyes
2 hazards checked on this product, all on its full breakdown.
Find an alternative on AmazonMore waterproof sports undergarments 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.