Pure White RashShield® Diapers

Parasol holds OEKO-TEX STANDARD 100 at Product Class I under certificate BJ026 283472, issued by TESTEX AG and valid to 30 April 2027, scoped to the finished baby diaper and baby pant rather than to their materials. That number resolves in OEKO-TEX Label Check, and the Class I screening — VOC emissions, the 44-compound speciation panel, organotins and the PFAS method — is run on the assembled product.

The core uses totally chlorine-free (TCF) wood pulp, and the chlorine-free designation is carried in the retailer's own product data and pack title, with outside brand-by-brand comparison work placing these diapers in the TCF column rather than the ECF one. The bleaching method itself is self-declared: no mill certificate or pulp test stands behind the TCF label.

Fragrance, dyes and lotions are each excluded by name, and hands-on testing by outside reviewers found the diaper free of fragrance, lotion and latex with water-based inks used on the backsheet only, so no printed decoration sits on the layer against the skin. The topsheet is unscented and carries an infusion of chamomile-derived alpha-bisabolol rather than a lotion or cream.

More than 60 individual PFAS compounds are screened on the finished diaper across EN 17681-1:2025 and OEKO-TEX STANDARD 100 Method 9, with every category at or below detectable limits. The panel sits behind TESTEX AG report BJ026 283472.1, issued 30 April 2026 — an accredited laboratory named and a dated report reference, though the per-compound detection limits stay unpublished.

We queried the complete CPSC recall corpus — 9,944 records spanning June 1973 to August 2026 — and Parasol Co appears nowhere in it, in any role, at any date. The same corpus contains 32 diaper records, 86 pacifier records and 1,470 toy records, so this product class is covered and the clean result reflects the brand's genuine absence rather than a failed search.

The absorbent core is a published dual-core specification: sodium polyacrylate SAP over a 5mm suspended absorption layer, rated at up to four cups — about five wettings across 12 hours — with pulp use cut by half. The SAP supplier, its country of origin and any residual acrylic-acid or acrylamide monomer testing are not published, and the polymer is called only "high-grade".

The marks on this diaper now carry numbers: OEKO-TEX STANDARD 100 Class I under certificate BJ026 283472 from TESTEX AG, and FSC chain of custody under SGSHK-COC-331121 from SGS Hong Kong — both current, both scoped to the finished product, and both resolvable in their issuers' registries. The Dermatest “Excellent” rating is carried by study number rather than by a published certificate.

Parasol publishes the diaper material by material: a polyethylene and polybutylene terephthalate topsheet with alpha-bisabolol, a dual core of totally chlorine-free wood pulp and sodium polyacrylate, a polyethylene backsheet, polypropylene and PET fastening tabs, styrene-butadiene copolymer adhesives, spandex leg cuffs and a wetness indicator. Asked for a full materials list, the brand provided one consistent with that breakdown, but the pigments used in the prints and the wetness-indicator chemistry are still not named.

Dermatest GmbH study 1906035906 V2 ran this product on 20 children aged four months to four years, several times daily in the nappy area over four weeks, and recorded zero pathological findings — no irritation and no contact dermatitis in any subject, under ISO 9001 quality assurance monitored by TÜV Rheinland. The study document itself is not published.

Asked directly for a full materials list, Parasol supplied one matching its published layer-by-layer breakdown, though the pigments and the wetness-indicator materials were left out; the diapers are made in China with materials sourced worldwide, a fact the brand does not print itself.

The fluff pulp runs under FSC chain of custody SGSHK-COC-331121 (CN20/31823), issued by SGS Hong Kong and valid to 28 November 2030, covering FSC 100% and FSC Mix pulp purchasing through diaper manufacture and sale. The code resolves in the FSC public register; the forest region and the pulp supplier are still not named.