75/ 100
C
OverallD67/100
24 Hour Deodorant

Bonnie & Clyde · Deodorant

24 Hour Deodorant

C · Moderate

Lower concern, standard stick deodorant with no known PFAS triggers, but brand offers no transparency.

Verdict: BuyStandard stick deodorant with no established hazards; PFAS profile acceptable for category. Brand transparency is minimal but not disqualifying.

Bonnie & Clyde's 24 Hour Deodorant is a conventional stick format with no publicly documented Teflon-family coating coatings, water-repellent treatments, or stain-resist finishes that typically introduce PFAS. The brand makes no PFAS disclosures or claims, which is typical for deodorant but limits verification.

Shop Bonnie & Clyde on Amazon →

Material

typical deodorant wax/starch base; no water-resistance treatment typical for stick format

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Category baseline

cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

Safe base material

Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).

Helps the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Bonnie & Clyde 24 Hour Deodorant uses a typical wax and starch base formulation common to all stick deodorants, designed to adhere to skin and provide odor control via mineral salts or synthetic antimicrobials. This category of product does not involve heating, water resistance coatings, or synthetic polymers that typically trigger heavy metal or solvent leaching. The absence of a water-resistance treatment (common in antiperspirants but not standard deodorants) reduces exposure to problematic additives like Teflon-type coating or silicone-based coatings.

The brand's record and disclosure

Bonnie & Clyde maintains a silent public stance on ingredient sourcing, safety testing, or third-party certifications; no published safety data sheet, allergen list, or formulation transparency is readily available. The brand has no documented recalls, regulatory actions, or safety controversies on record. This lack of proactive disclosure is typical of smaller deodorant brands but limits independent verification of ingredient quality and sourcing standards.

How it compares in its category

Bonnie & Clyde sits in the mid-market stick deodorant segment, offering no certifications (organic, hypoallergenic, heavy-metal tested) that differentiate premium or safety-focused competitors. Transparent brands in this category typically publish full ingredient lists and third-party testing results; Bonnie & Clyde does not. For hazard risk, this product is equivalent to generic drugstore stick deodorants in material profile, with no documented superiority or deficiency.

If you buy it

Store below 77°F (25°C) to prevent warping or separation of wax base, which can affect product integrity but poses no acute health risk. Replace every 6-12 months or when adhesion or odor control noticeably declines. If skin irritation, rash, or contact dermatitis occurs, discontinue and patch test on inner arm before resuming. Monitor the stick for visible mold, separation, or off-odors, which would signal contamination and warrant replacement.

Beyond PFAS: other things we checked

Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”

Possible

Fragrance allergens and contact sensitizers

Like all deodorants, Bonnie & Clyde likely contains synthetic fragrance compounds; specific fragrance allergens (limonene, linalool, geraniol, etc.) are not disclosed. No independent testing on record; risk is typical for this category and primarily affects individuals with sensitive skin or fragrance sensitivities.

None known

Heavy metals in mineral-based actives

Standard stick deodorants rely on talc, clay, or mineral salts as base; no independent testing of this product for lead, cadmium, or arsenic contamination is publicly available. Risk is not higher than any unbranded stick deodorant, but lack of third-party certification leaves it unverified.

None known

Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives

Stick deodorants (unlike liquid or aerosol formats) have low water content and typically use non-aqueous preservatives; formaldehyde-releasers are uncommon in this form factor. No evidence of use in Bonnie & Clyde products on record.

Possible

Skin irritation from alkaline or antimicrobial agents

Deodorants without antiperspirant may use stronger odor-suppressing antimicrobials (triclosan analogues or essential oils); these can irritate sensitive skin. Bonnie & Clyde's specific formula is not publicly detailed, so risk cannot be differentiated from standard deodorants.

None known

Talc contamination with asbestos

If this product uses talc as a base (common but not confirmed for this brand), historical asbestos contamination is a legacy concern for talc mining; modern cosmetic-grade talc is regulated in the US, but independent testing of this specific product is not on record. Risk is no higher than major-brand stick deodorants.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.

No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.

The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.

Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.

Safer alternatives in Deodorant

Tom's of Maine Deodorant

Tom's of Maine

Deodorant

mineral-based, baking soda formulation

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

Lower concern, mineral-based formula with public PFAS-free positioning, though no independent third-party verification.

Risky category by default

Tom's of Maine Most-Loved Deodorant Bundle

Tom's of Maine

Most-Loved Deodorant Bundle

mineral-based and plant-derived actives; stick formulation

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower-concern deodorant; mineral-based formula with PFAS-free claim aligns with brand ethos, but no third-party verification found.

Risky category by default

Tom's of Maine Antiperspirant Deodorant

Tom's of Maine

Antiperspirant Deodorant

mineral-based active ingredients, plant-derived botanicals, no synthetic water-repellent coatings

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower PFAS concern, mineral-based formula with MADE SAFE cert; antiperspirant category has minimal waterproof-coating risk.

MADE SAFE CertifiedLeaping Bunny (cruelty-free)

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

More deodorant 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.