Microplastics in Tampons & Period Products: 2024 Berkeley Study
Last reviewed: by the MicroPlastics Research Desk. Submit a correction or see our editorial standards.
Quick Answer
Different product on your shelf? Paste the declared ingredient list to review documented name matches; this is not a product test.
Scan my product
Key Takeaways
- The Shearston et al. 2024 UC Berkeley study found 16 metals in 100% of 30 tampon samples across 14 brands.
- Vaginal tissue has higher absorption potential than skin elsewhere, chemical migration is biologically significant.
- Conventional tampons typically contain polypropylene (applicator, string), polyethylene (backing), and viscose-rayon (core).
- Period pads typically contain 90%+ plastic by weight, polyethylene backing, polypropylene topsheet, superabsorbent polymer (SAP) core.
- Medical-grade silicone menstrual cups (Saalt, Diva), 100% organic cotton tampons (Saalt, Cora), and period underwear (Thinx, Knix) are the safest alternatives.
The 2024 Berkeley study that changed the conversation
Jenni Shearston and colleagues at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health published their tampon analysis in Environment Internationalin July 2024. Testing 30 tampons from 14 brands and 18 product lines purchased in the US and Europe, they screened for 16 metals using ICP-MS analysis.
The findings were striking:
- 100% of samples contained measurable metals across all 16 elements tested.
- Lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury were among those detected.
- Organic tampons had lower arsenic on average but higher lead than non-organic, suggesting different contamination pathways.
- Both US and European products tested similarly, this is a global supply chain issue.
- The researchers chose not to name brands to avoid implying that uncontaminated alternatives exist (none in their sample did).
The study was deliberately designed not to estimate health effects, it was a first-detection paper. Whether metals migrate from the tampon into vaginal tissue and at what dose has not been quantified yet.
Beyond metals: the microplastic component
Tampons and pads have multiple plastic components:
- Applicators, polypropylene or cardboard.
- String, polypropylene (cotton-string organic alternatives exist).
- Tampon core, typically a viscose-rayon + cotton blend; viscose is a semi-synthetic fibre.
- Pad backing, polyethylene film (the “leakproof” bottom layer).
- Pad topsheet, polypropylene nonwoven.
- Pad absorbent core, superabsorbent polymer (SAP), typically sodium polyacrylate.
A 2022 RSC Environmental Science: Nano study estimated that period products release significant microplastic fibres during use and disposal, both into the body and the environment.
Period product options compared
| Product | Microplastic / chemical safety | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Medical-grade silicone menstrual cup (Saalt, Diva, Lunette, OrganiCup) | Very low | 10-year lifespan; reusable; medical-grade silicone |
| Menstrual disc (Saalt Disc, Flex) | Very low (silicone) or low (TPE) | Similar to cups; different fit |
| Period underwear (Thinx, Knix, Saalt) | Low-moderate (check for PFAS - Thinx had a 2022 PFAS recall) | Reusable; check current PFAS-free certification |
| 100% organic cotton tampon (Saalt, Cora, Honest, Lola, Rael) | Low (no synthetic core, plastic-free string) | Choose “applicator-free” or cardboard-applicator versions |
| Organic cotton pads (Natracare, Rael, Cora) | Low-moderate (cotton core, may still have some plastic backing) | Check for “fully biodegradable” certification |
| Reusable cloth pads (GladRags, Hannahpad) | Very low (cotton) | Reusable; cloth backing only |
| Conventional tampon (most major brands) | Moderate (metals + plastics) | Subject of 2024 Berkeley findings |
| Conventional pad (most major brands) | Higher (90%+ plastic by weight + SAP) | Heaviest plastic exposure category |
The 4 highest-impact switches
- Switch to a medical-grade silicone menstrual cup. Single biggest reduction. Saalt, Diva Cup, Lunette, OrganiCup all carry medical-grade silicone certification. 10-year lifespan.
- If using tampons, choose 100% organic cotton with cardboard or no applicator. Saalt, Cora, Honest, Lola, Rael.
- If using pads, choose 100% organic cotton or reusable cloth pads. Natracare for disposable; GladRags or Hannahpad for reusable.
- Period underwear is convenient but verify PFAS-free. Thinx had a 2022 settlement over PFAS contamination; check current third-party certifications before buying.
See related: microplastics and fertility, microplastics in cosmetics, and microplastics and skin absorption.
What the MicroPlastics app checks
- Ingredient list parsed from the product label or barcode.
- Flagged ingredients, polyethylene, acrylates, carbomer, PEG, fragrance, parabens.
- Product category, leave-on vs rinse-off; risk weighted differently.
- Brand and product line, clean certifications (EWG VERIFIED, MADE SAFE).
- Cited research and regulatory references for each scan.
Use the App
Scan personal-care products before buying
The MicroPlastics app reads the ingredient list, flags microplastic polymers and additives, and points to cleaner alternatives in the same category.
Scan cosmetics in the appFrequently Asked Questions
Are tampons safe?
Do tampons contain microplastics?
Are menstrual cups safer than tampons?
Are organic cotton tampons better?
Is period underwear safe?
What is the safest period product overall?
Sources
- Shearston JA, Upson K, Gordon M, et al. (2024). Tampons as a source of exposure to metal(loid)s. Environment International.
- Bouwmeester H, Schroeder D, Mauricio R, et al. (2022). Release of microplastic fibres and fragmentation to billions of nanoplastics from period products. Environmental Science: Nano (RSC).
- Davis EL, Sandhu KS, Lyons-Eubanks H, et al. (2025). Plastic Additives in Single-Use and Reusable Menstrual Products. Environmental Science & Technology.
- US Food and Drug Administration (2024). Tampons: Frequently Asked Questions. FDA.
Build your cosmetics ingredient watchlist
Scan products in your bathroom, save reference-list matches, and get an alert when a brand you use reformulates. The web checker handles one declared ingredient list at a time; the app handles your whole shelf.
Download on the App Store- Free on iOS
- 3 free scans
- No sign-up
- Result in seconds
“Really cool to scan stuff around the kitchen and see what's actually in it. The swaps it suggests are realistic.” App Store review · 5.0★
Android · early access
Get the launch email the day Android opens.
One email. No spam. We send when the Android app is in the Play Store, and never again unless you opt in.
Related Research
Microplastics in Shampoo & Conditioner: 87% Contain Polymers
Most mainstream shampoos and conditioners contain dimethicone, polyquaternium, acrylates copolymer, and PEG polymers. lower-plastic-contact plastic-free brands ranked.
Read moreMicroplastics in Lipstick and Lip Balm: What You Swallow Every Day
Many lipsticks contain polyethylene, PET, or acrylates copolymer. The average woman swallows 2.5-7 lbs of lipstick over a lifetime. lower-plastic-contact brands ranked.
Read moreMicroplastics, Aging Skin & Collagen: What Science Shows
Microplastics and their associated chemicals accelerate skin aging through oxidative stress and collagen breakdown. Anti-aging skincare often contains the worst polymers.
Read moreDoes Vaseline Have Microplastics? Petrolatum Is Not a Plastic Bead
Original Vaseline lists 100% white petrolatum USP and no declared solid synthetic microplastic. Why petroleum origin does not define a plastic particle—and why other variants need their own label check.
Read moreDoes Colgate Toothpaste Have Microplastics? Check the Exact Formula
Colgate says it stopped microbeads in 2014, and the Total formula reviewed has no obvious solid microplastic. The exact regional paste and the multilayer HDPE tube still need separate checks.
Read moreThink Dirty vs Yuka: How the Two Scanners Differ — and the Question Neither One Asks
Yuka scores 0–100 off its single worst ingredient; Think Dirty scores 0–10 and leans natural. Yuka carries ~2M products against Think Dirty’s ~1,200 brands. But neither rates synthetic polymers, because inert plastics are invisible to toxicological hazard criteria by design — so a formula can score well on both and still be built out of plastic.
Read more