Concerns Over Toxic Chemicals in Reusable Menstrual Products

There’s growing concern about reusable menstrual products, especially as their popularity spikes among younger users. Many of these items, like washable pads and underwear, have been found to contain toxic substances referred to as “forever chemicals.” Research published in Environmental Science and Technology Letters highlights this issue, noting these concerns arise as more consumers lean towards multipurpose items instead of disposable options.

Marta Venier, a co-author of the study from the University of Notre Dame, pointed out the importance of ensuring the safety of these products, especially as they offer a more sustainable alternative. “This is crucial for adolescents and young women, who may be more susceptible to health risks,” she added.

The chemicals in question are known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs), which are commonly found in various household items—think waterproof materials, non-stick cookware, and some personal care products. With approximately 15,000 different types of PFAs in existence, many are synthetic and linked to serious health concerns like cancer. These “forever chemicals” tend to hang around in the environment and can accumulate in the human body over several years.

Previous research from China has raised alarms about the presence of PFAs in personal hygiene products such as menstrual cups and pads. Moreover, an investigation by Sierra Magazine in 2020, which included input from Graham Peaslee—the senior author of the current study—uncovered intentional fluoride use in a brand of period underwear, leading to a significant settlement.

To check for PFAs in a product, scientists typically look at the total fluorine content in a sample. If levels exceed safety limits, it usually indicates that fluorine was deliberately used in the product’s formulation, rather than coming from unintentional contamination.

In this study, researchers analyzed 59 reusable hygiene products from various regions, such as North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. This included period underwear, reusable pads, and menstrual cups. Initial tests for total fluorine revealed that period underwear and reusable pads had significant instances of intentional PFA use—33% and 25%, respectively.

The findings were global, indicating intentional fluorination in multiple continents. After the total fluorine screening, 19 products underwent a more detailed analysis targeting specific types of PFAs.

Interestingly, PFAs that can easily “dissociate” in the environment tend to spread more widely, contributing to potential contamination. Legacy compounds like PFOA are among the most infamous of these ionic PFAs, although their production is mostly stopped—they’re still out there in the environment.

On the flip side, neutral PFAs, previously thought less harmful, are being re-evaluated as they can transform into more dangerous ionic PFAs within the body. In tests conducted on period products, researchers found PFAs in all of the samples, with certain neutral types being particularly prevalent.

Sydney Brady, a co-author, noted that one of the most common PFAs detected is 8:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (FTOH), frequently found in North American products, despite its elimination from food packaging by manufacturers due to safety concerns from the FDA about its persistence in the body.

Brady cautioned that 8:2 FTOH can convert into more toxic compounds once inside the body. While there’s not a lot of research on PFA exposure from skin contact or through food and water, early studies hint that skin absorption presents a potentially significant pathway, particularly with female hygiene products.

“These products stay in contact with skin for a prolonged period,” Venier remarked, adding that the risks associated with skin absorption of PFAs, particularly neutral ones, are still poorly understood. This gap in knowledge underscores the need for further research on the health risks linked to PFA exposure through skin contact.

The authors emphasized that it’s quite possible to develop safer, healthier alternatives without intentionally added PFAs, especially after identifying at least one sample in each product category that contained no such chemicals.