Helen Lynn, Senior Consultant and Research Fellow (Feminist Toxic Free Futures), Wen talks to Kathrin Schilling, Assistant Professor at CUIMC of Environmental Health Sciences about the recent research paper which found very high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in reusable menstrual pads and underwear.
What did you think of the research?
I think this was a strong piece of research. The team used two powerful lab machines called spectrometers to measure a wide range of PFAS. Importantly, they looked at both “ionic” PFAS (the charged types we’ve known about for years) and “neutral” PFAS, which often fly under the radar but can be more easily absorbed through skin and mucous membranes. The difference between both types of PFAS comes down to how they behave as chemicals and in the environment.
What would have been helpful?
One thing I found odd that they also tested single-use menstrual products such as pads, tampons and panty liners, and also their packaging but the information on this is buried away in the supplementary material instead of the main paper. Putting those results side-by-side with the reusable products could have made the findings even more compelling. All the single use products tested had detectable levels of PFAS but in much lower amounts than the reusables. But both types of PFAS were found in the packaging.
It also would have been helpful to see a simple table showing the total PFAS levels for each product tested. That would make it easier to compare to earlier studies—for example, a study from 2023 found 21 ng/g in menstrual cups and 52 ng/g in pads but that work didn’t test for neutral PFAS, so the levels in products aren’t directly comparable.
By not releasing the brands tested alongside results, all reusable and SUDs are tarred with the same brush creating consumer concerns and confusion as to what’s safe to use.
What do you think is the biggest take away from this paper?
PFAS showed up in every reusable menstrual product they tested. Around 1/3 of period underwear and 1/4 of reusable pads seemed to have PFAS intentionally added, probably for water or stain resistance. That points to deliberate design choices, not just accidental contamination. This isn’t the first study to find PFAS in menstrual products, but it’s frustrating to see that little has changed despite the warnings.
Was there anything that surprised you in the study?
Not exactly surprising but still worrying. PFAS were found at levels similar to what you’d see in outdoor gear like raincoats. That says a lot about how much is still ending up in products we use on our bodies every month. We really need stronger rules, honest labelling, and independent checks. The mainstream US underwear lawsuit a few years ago is a good reminder of the public concern here in the US and abroad.
What chemicals did they find, and why does it matter?
They detected both ionic PFAS like PFOA and PFOS which tend to stay in the blood and are already linked to cancer, immune problems, and reproductive issues, and neutral PFAS, which can move through skin and mucous membranes more easily but haven’t been studied as much.
The total PFAS levels were often over 1,000 ng/g on par with waterproof jackets or some food packaging, both of which are already restricted in many countries. Some products had PFOA below the EU’s legal limit, but the real concern is the mix of many PFAS types together, especially the neutral ones.
Could these levels cause harm?
The truth is, we currently know very little about the health effects of neutral PFAS. There are very few published studies focused on this class of compounds. One study I found looked at skin/dermal absorption and suggested that transdermal (absorption through the skin) uptake might be a more relevant exposure route than inhalation for some neutral PFAS.
We don’t yet know how much PFAS the body might absorb from menstrual products. But finding PFAS that seem to be intentionally added is troubling especially when some products had no PFAS at all, showing it’s possible to make safer versions.
California and New York State banned PFAS in textiles, which tells you how seriously regulators are taking this.
How can consumers avoid PFAS in their period products?
It’s hard to do so, it’s not something you can see. Because there is no regulation in the UK on this, consumers need to choose wisely, ask questions of produces and check if they test for PFAS and publish results of such testing. Ultimately, we need regulations, like the ones passed in California and New York State. Given menstruation is such an intersectional issue, Wen’s Menstrual Health, Dignity and Sustainability Act is a good example of how we need to address regulation in conjunction with the lack of education, and existing stigma and taboos.
Kathrin Schilling is Assistant Professor at CUIMC of Environmental Health Sciences. She is an isotope geochemist and has been at the forefront of developing stable metal isotopes as biomarkers to answer a wide array of research questions, relevant for the diagnosis, prevention, and control of diseases and nutrient status.
Helen Lynn is Senior Consultant and Research Fellow (Feminist Toxic Free Futures), Wen and has spent her career building feminist health campaigns including founding the Alliance for Cancer Prevention and From Pink to Prevention. She has worked at national, European and International levels on issues linking gender, health and the environment. Helen also heads up Wen’s Environmenstrual Campaign.
Read Wen’s response to the research finding PFAS in reusable period products.
