PFAS25/ 100Poor
Overall13/ 100Bad
Rearz Overnight Booster Pads Case

Rearz · Incontinence Pads & Protection

Rearz Overnight Booster Pads Case

Poor

Waterproof treatment composition unknown, PFAS presence unclear.

Verdict · SkipCellulose-core pads with unknown waterproof backing present unclear PFAS risk; no major recalls documented, but brand transparency on materials is minimal.

Rearz overnight boosters have waterproof backing of undisclosed composition and the brand shares no PFAS information. Overnight pads typically employ water-resistant layers that may contain PFAS without transparency.

The better-graded swap

TENA Very Light

Tena

TENA Very Light

70/100 safety

70Good

Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned Good.

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

Material

cellulose/synthetic absorbent core with waterproof backing layer

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

What Rearz Overnight Booster Pads Case is made of, ingredients and materials

Rearz Overnight Booster Pads use a cellulose-based absorbent core (wood pulp) combined with synthetic materials and a waterproof backing layer. The cellulose itself has no hazard of this kind on record for skin contact, but the waterproof layer's chemical composition is not publicly disclosed by Rearz. Without transparency on whether this backing uses Teflon-type coating, polyurethane, or other polymers, the specific leaching and degradation risks remain unconfirmed.

What’s concerning

♾️

Category baseline

The starting point for this type of product, before anything specific to this product is counted.

75/ 100
♾️

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement from the brand about PFAS in this product.

85/ 100
♾️

Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment

Water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.

65/ 100
♾️

PFAS

Waterproof layer composition is undisclosed; PFAS-based water repellents are common in period-pad backings, but no specific testing or manufacturer confirmation exists for this product.

Source, ATSDR ↗
70/ 100
⏳

Synthetic polymer degradation and leaching

Extended contact with moisture, body heat, and acidic menstrual fluid can degrade synthetic backing layers over time, potentially releasing monomers or plasticizers; risk level depends on specific polymer type (unknown).

70/ 100
🏷️

Contact dermatitis from undisclosed additives

Adhesives, dyes, or processing residues in the synthetic backing or absorbent layers are not itemized; users with sensitive skin or previous pad-related reactions face unquantified risk.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

🫧

Microplastics

No recalls or documented complaints of microplastic shedding from Rearz pads. Synthetic absorbent cores can fragment if heavily used or stored improperly, but this is not a known issue with this brand.

Source, EPA ↗
95/ 100
✅

Chlorine bleach residue (if bleached cellulose used)

Rearz does not disclose whether cellulose is elemental chlorine-free (ECF) or totally chlorine-free (TCF); if ECF is used and improperly rinsed, trace dioxins are theoretically possible but undocumented in period-pad products.

95/ 100

The full breakdown

The brand's record and disclosure

Rearz is a smaller, Australia-based brand focused on incontinence and period products. The company does not publicly disclose material certifications (ISO, Oeko-Tex, or similar third-party standards) or provide detailed component breakdowns for its pads. No major product recalls or safety incidents are documented in public databases. The brand's silence on PFAS use and waterproofing chemistry is consistent with minimal industry-wide disclosure in this category.

How it compares in its category

Most period-pad makers (Kotex, Always, Tampax, and indie brands like Cora and Reel) also do not routinely disclose full waterproof backing chemistry, so Rearz is not an outlier in opacity. However, some competitors have moved toward certified organic or hypoallergenic lines with public material statements. Overnight-specific boosters tend to use thicker synthetic cores and more robust water barriers, increasing the surface area of potentially undisclosed polymers. Rearz's pricing and positioning suggest it targets practical, budget-conscious users rather than the premium/organic segment.

If you buy it

Store pads in a cool, dry place away from direct heat or sunlight to minimize any polymer degradation or off-gassing. Use for intended overnight or heavy-flow periods only; do not repurpose or expose to extreme moisture. If skin irritation, rash, or unusual odor develops, discontinue and switch to a certified hypoallergenic alternative. Consider requesting material safety data sheets or transparency statements directly from Rearz if PFAS concerns are a priority.

What we don’t know

Basis
Model estimate, 35% confidence, not a lab result
Lab test
None on record for this exact product
Brand statement
Rearz has made none

Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.

Better-graded alternatives in Incontinence Pads & Protection

Eco by Naty Incontinence Pads

Eco By Naty

Incontinence Pads

70GoodPFAS grade
  • Bamboo-derived viscose, cotton, plant-based absorbent core
  • We found no PFAS statement from the brand
  • Heavy metals
Because Booster Pads

Because Market

Because Booster Pads

70GoodPFAS grade
  • Cellulose, superabsorbent polymer, cotton blend
  • We found no PFAS statement from the brand
  • Absorbent material degradation and bacterial growth

2 hazards checked on this product. See all of them.

5pcs Bamboo Charcoal Washable Incontinence Pads

5pcs Bamboo Charcoal Washable Incontinence Pads

70GoodPFAS grade
  • bamboo charcoal textile, washable cotton-blend absorbent layer
  • We found no PFAS statement from the brand
  • Azo dyes and synthetic colorants

4 hazards checked on this product. See all of them.

More incontinence pads & protection 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.