40/ 100
F
OverallF10/100
Body Glove Tidal Waterproof Phone Pouch

Waterproof Case Co. · Waterproof Smartphone Cases

Body Glove Tidal Waterproof Phone Pouch

F · High PFAS

Skip until brand discloses waterproof coating chemistry.

Verdict: SkipFunctional product with undisclosed waterproof coating chemistry; PFAS risk unresolved; safe if coating remains intact and not heated. Brand transparency needed.

Phone pouches often use PFAS-based water-repellent coating coatings for waterproofing. Body Glove makes no public disclosure of coating type or PFAS status, raising concern about hidden forever chemicals.

The safe swap

Mophie Juice Pack Battery Case for iPhone 15

Mophie

Mophie Juice Pack Battery Case for iPhone 15

85/100 safety

B

Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned its B.

Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.

Material

Waterproof-treated synthetic pouch, coating unspecified

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment

water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.

Hurts the grade

Category baseline

other 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

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Body Glove Tidal pouches are constructed from synthetic materials (typically neoprene or polyurethane blend) with an unspecified waterproof coating applied to seal seams and surfaces. The coating chemistry is the critical unknown: waterproof treatments commonly use PFAS-based compounds (Teflon-family coating) or alternative durable water repellents, but Waterproof Case Co. has not publicly disclosed which approach they employ. Without this disclosure, the actual chemical hazard profile cannot be definitively assessed. The synthetic base materials themselves (neoprene, polyurethane) are not inherent toxicity concerns at normal use temperatures.

The brand's record and disclosure

Waterproof Case Co. does not appear to have published material safety data, PFAS disclosure statements, or third-party certifications regarding coating composition on publicly available channels. No major recalls or established safety incidents specific to this product line have been documented. The brand's silence on waterproof chemistry is the primary gap; competitors in the phone pouch space increasingly disclose or claim PFAS-free formulations as a differentiator. This lack of transparency is a compliance and consumer-confidence red flag rather than evidence of hazard, but it prevents informed risk assessment.

How it compares in its category

Waterproof phone pouches vary widely in coating strategy. Premium brands (e.g., OtterBox, Lifeproof) often disclose non-PFAS or lower-fluorine alternatives; budget and mid-tier options frequently use undisclosed treatments. Body Glove's positioning as a mid-market consumer brand suggests cost-driven formulation, which historically correlates with conventional PFAS-based waterproofing rather than proprietary non-fluorine alternatives. The product itself performs its core function adequately; the gap is disclosure and chemical transparency, not field safety data.

If you buy it

Inspect the pouch regularly for coating cracks, peeling, or delamination; once the waterproof layer degrades, seal integrity fails and phone protection is lost. Do not expose to prolonged direct heat (car dashboards, hot sand) or harsh solvents, as these can accelerate coating breakdown. Rinse with fresh water after saltwater or chlorine exposure to prevent material degradation. Request PFAS disclosure from the manufacturer before purchase if waterproof chemistry transparency is a priority for your household.

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.”

Likely

Coating degradation and integrity failure

Synthetic waterproof coatings (regardless of PFAS status) degrade under UV, salt spray, and mechanical stress; once compromised, the pouch loses its primary safety function of protecting electronics and can trap moisture against the device.

Possible

Off-gassing from polyurethane or neoprene base material

Neoprene and polyurethane can release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during manufacturing and initial use, particularly in warm or poorly ventilated storage. Intensity varies by production quality and is typically low in finished consumer products but stronger in sealed new items.

None known

Leachable components from synthetic adhesives or dyes

No documented cases of harmful leaching from Body Glove pouches to skin or electronics. Synthetic textiles in this application are unlikely to shed dyes into water or onto skin at normal use temperatures, though unspecified dye chemistry creates minor uncertainty.

Possible

Microplastic shedding from base material

Neoprene and polyurethane are durable but can slowly shed microparticles if the surface is abraded, compressed, or degraded. In a sealed pouch this is minimal, but if coating fails and edges fray, microscopic debris may accumulate inside.

Possible

Undisclosed waterproof coating chemistry (PFAS risk vector)

The unspecified waterproof treatment is the primary concern. While absence of disclosure is not proof of PFAS, it is consistent with cost-optimized formulations that historically rely on conventional fluorinated compounds. Cannot assess actual chemical exposure risk without composition data.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 35% 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 Waterproof Smartphone Cases

Mophie Juice Pack Battery Case for iPhone 15

Mophie

Juice Pack Battery Case for iPhone 15

Lithium-ion battery, plastic housing, metal contacts

B
C
PFASAll
B · Low PFAS3 flags

No known PFAS use; battery cases rarely require fluorinated coatings.

Brand says nothing about PFAS

Mophie Juice Pack Battery Case for iPhone 15 Pro

Mophie

Juice Pack Battery Case for iPhone 15 Pro

Lithium-ion battery, plastic housing, rubber grips

B
C
PFASAll
B · Low PFAS2 flags

Lower concern. Battery cases lack typical PFAS-prone coatings; no public disclosure available.

Brand says nothing about PFAS

Pelican Shield Phone Case for Samsung Galaxy S24 Plus

Pelican

Shield Phone Case for Samsung Galaxy S24 Plus

Polycarbonate shell, rubber grip

B
D
PFASAll
B · Low PFAS4 flags

Lower concern; typical phone case with no known PFAS applications.

Brand says nothing about PFAS

More waterproof smartphone cases 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.