Waterproof Technologies · Waterproof Outdoor Gear Storage Bags
PROJECT M23 Waterproof Field Bag
Skip until brand discloses waterproof treatment composition.
Waterproof field bags typically use water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) treatments, which historically contained PFAS. Brand provides no transparency on coating chemistry or PFAS status.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Unknown waterproof coating on bag fabric
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.
Category baseline
other is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
The PROJECT M23 uses an undisclosed waterproof coating applied to bag fabric, which is the critical unknown here. Waterproof field bags typically employ either Teflon-family coating-based (Teflon-type coating, PFOA) or polyurethane-based coatings to repel moisture. Without the brand specifying which chemistry they use, you cannot assess whether you are exposed to PFAS compounds during handling or in runoff when the bag eventually degrades. The fabric substrate itself (nylon, polyester, canvas) is likely standard, but the coating is where chemical risk concentrates.
The brand's record and disclosure
Waterproof Technologies has not publicly disclosed the specific chemical composition of their waterproof treatment, nor have they published PFAS-free certifications or sustainability commitments regarding coatings. No major recalls or health controversies are on record for this brand, but silence on waterproofing chemistry is a significant red flag in an industry where PFAS-treated fabrics are common and increasingly scrutinized. The lack of transparency prevents independent verification of whether the coating meets emerging PFAS-free standards.
How it compares in its category
Field bags marketed as waterproof are increasingly available with disclosed coatings: some brands now specify PU (polyurethane) or silicone waterproofing, which avoid persistent fluorinated compounds. Waterproof Technologies' refusal or inability to disclose puts the PROJECT M23 behind competitors who have committed to transparency or PFAS-free alternatives. A competing bag with a labeled PU or silicone coating, or third-party PFAS-free certification, would be a safer choice pending disclosure.
If you buy it
Do not purchase until the brand confirms waterproof coating composition in writing. If you already own one, minimize skin contact with the exterior coating (especially if worn against clothing), store it in a well-ventilated area to limit inhalation of any off-gassed chemicals, and avoid washing it in ways that would release coating particles into water systems. Monitor the bag for coating degradation (peeling, flaking) and retire it if the waterproof layer visibly fails. Request a material safety data sheet or technical specification from Waterproof Technologies before any purchase decision.
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.”
PFAS in waterproof coating (Teflon-family coating or legacy treatments)
Undisclosed waterproof treatment on this field bag could contain Teflon-type coating, PFOA, or other perfluorinated compounds; absence of brand confirmation leaves this unresolved. Teflon-family coating coatings are standard in outdoor waterproofing but are persistent environmental contaminants and bioaccumulative.
Polyurethane coating off-gassing
If the waterproof layer is polyurethane-based, new bags may emit low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or unreacted isocyanates, particularly if stored in warm or humid conditions. This poses inhalation risk primarily during initial use or storage in enclosed spaces.
Coating degradation and microparticle release
Waterproof coatings on outdoor gear degrade over time through UV exposure, flexing, and washing, releasing microparticles and chemical residues. Users may inhale or ingest these particles, and degradation products can contaminate soil and water if the bag is discarded.
Dye migration from synthetic fabrics
Nylon and polyester field bags may use azo or reactive dyes; no specific safety issues are on record for this product, but prolonged skin contact with synthetic dyed fabrics can occasionally trigger contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals.
Lack of disclosure enabling informed hazard assessment
The primary hazard is the absence of compositional transparency. Without knowing the waterproof chemistry, users cannot identify if they face PFAS exposure, sensitizer exposure, or off-gassing risk, making informed risk-benefit decisions impossible.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 25% 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.
More waterproof outdoor gear storage bags 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.