Forever chemicals and rain gear

So with everything about forever chemicals in the news recently, and the prevalence of said chemicals in many DWR treatments, I’m curious when we’re all switching back to waxed canvas?Anybody know if any of our favorite brands have taken a lead on replacing these chemicals in their processes? Or if any of those same brands have even publicly acknowledged this issue?

So what yer saying is buy rain gear now while its still good before they change everything to waxed canvas.  

First off, I’ll say that I’m really not concerned about the environmental impact of my hardshell— spread out over a ~7 year service life, the impact is negligible. Choosing to live in a small, well insulated house, reducing my meat consumption, and bike-commuting have a real impact on my environmental footprint, but as far as clothing goes I’m of the mindset that buying less stuff is a heck of a lot more important than buying the right stuff.
That said, here’s the current state of things: 

Membranes:

Goretex is beginning phasing out ePTFE in favor of an expanded-Polyethylene (ePE) membrane this fall.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timnewcomb/2021/09/29/gore-tex-announces-thinner-sustainable-membrane-for-apparel-footwear/

Electrospun PU (neoshell, ascentshell, futurelight) outperforms ePTFE in breathability, and is generally good enough as far as waterproofing goes.

DWR:

Most(all?) the big brands have at least stopped using PFCoECs (PFCs of Enviromental Concern), but this is a bit weasel-worded, since it doesn’t include chemicals which are similar to those that have been identified as environmentally harmful, but not yet individually determined to be. Long-chain PFCs (C8, C6) are the really nasty ones that stick around forever, and these are not being used for DWR anymore (which is part of why DWR on a new shell wears off quicker than it used to).

Patagonia has gotten some invective aimed at them for continuing to use PFAS, but my understanding is that they’re mostly just being more honest about using a broad category of harmful chemicals, rather than switching between related chemicals that have not explicitly been determined to be harmful. MHW brags that they’ve dropped PFCs, but they don’t say anything about the broader PFAS category. OR says they don’t use PFCoECs, but again that’s a pretty narrow category

Nikwax DWR doesn’t use PFAS, instead using zirconium acetate, but it wets out pretty quickly and needs a fresh application basically seasonally, so I get why brands are reluctant to drop PFAS entirely.

Eli W wrote:

First off, I’ll say that I’m really not concerned about the environmental impact of my hardshell— spread out over a ~7 year service life, the impact is negligible. Choosing to live in a small, well insulated house, reducing my meat consumption, and bike-commuting have a real impact on my environmental footprint, but as far as clothing goes I’m of the mindset that buying less stuff is a heck of a lot more important than buying the right stuff.
That said, here’s the current state of things: 

Membranes:

Goretex is beginning phasing out ePTFE in favor of an expanded-Polyethylene (ePE) membrane this fall.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timnewcomb/2021/09/29/gore-tex-announces-thinner-sustainable-membrane-for-apparel-footwear/

Electrospun PU (neoshell, ascentshell, futurelight) outperforms ePTFE in breathability, and is generally good enough as far as waterproofing goes.

DWR:

Most(all?) the big brands have at least stopped using PFCoECs (PFCs of Enviromental Concern), but this is a bit weasel-worded, since it doesn’t include chemicals which are similar to those that have been identified as environmentally harmful, but not yet individually determined to be. Long-chain PFCs (C8, C6) are the really nasty ones that stick around forever, and these are not being used for DWR anymore (which is part of why DWR on a new shell wears off quicker than it used to).

Patagonia has gotten some invective aimed at them for continuing to use PFAS, but my understanding is that they’re mostly just being more honest about using a broad category of harmful chemicals, rather than switching between related chemicals that have not explicitly been determined to be harmful. MHW brags that they’ve dropped PFCs, but they don’t say anything about the broader PFAS category. OR says they don’t use PFCoECs, but again that’s a pretty narrow category

Nikwax DWR doesn’t use PFAS, instead using zirconium acetate, but it wets out pretty quickly and needs a fresh application basically seasonally, so I get why brands are reluctant to drop PFAS entirely.

Exactly the type of info I was curious about. Thank you. 

I think fjallraven is using only wax now if im not mistaken. 

https://youtu.be/VTsAFrTWMqA

This video says a few things about.its more environmentally friendly. But not as good as gore tex

And about nikwax not having the "bad chemicals" i saw somewhere that 303 fabric guard is the best dwr on the market, being the closest to the factory dwr, at the expense of being solvent based. Never tried tho, but i would totally use if that means using less product overall and if it lasted longer. 

Philippe Queiroz wrote:

I think fjallraven is using only wax now if im not mistaken. 

https://youtu.be/VTsAFrTWMqA

This video says a few things about.its more environmentally friendly. But not as good as gore tex

And about nikwax not having the "bad chemicals" i saw somewhere that 303 fabric guard is the best dwr on the market, being the closest to the factory dwr, at the expense of being solvent based. Never tried tho, but i would totally use if that means using less product overall and if it lasted longer. 

303 is PFAS like factory DWR. No idea if the other ingredients are safe for WPB membranes, since it’s intended for outdoor upholstery.

Eli W wrote:

303 is PFAS like factory DWR. No idea if the other ingredients are safe for WPB membranes, since it’s intended for outdoor upholstery.

Yeah, thats why i havent tried before on any expensive jacket. I've seen only a few folks saying its ok for tech fabrics.. The majority of the users use it for car roofs, boat and outdoor upholstery as you said

I also have actively tried to use/purchase no PFAS in outdoor clothing/products, including retreatments for older raincoats.  I also agree that's its not our "major impact", but it is something we can control and choose, so I find it easy to just read the ingredients if I am serious about buying. It's crazy to use 500-1000+ year lifetime chemicals for products we use for ~5 years or so.  For perspective, it's like getting poisoned with something the Vikings made for their invasion of UK in the dark ages.. 

To avoid PFAS, I bought and use a waxed cotton fjallraven coat for around town when it's wet, and that works, but I doubt I'd try a  multiday backcountry with it. I try to redo the wax coating each year, not always successfully. I just deal with the dampness once in awhile and am careful about taking care of my gear, not washing it, etc. to keep the original coating strong.   

tallguy wrote:

To avoid PFAS, I bought and use a waxed cotton fjallraven coat for around town when it's wet, and that works, but I doubt I'd try a  multiday backcountry with it. I try to redo the wax coating each year, not always successfully. I just deal with the dampness once in awhile and am careful about taking care of my gear, not washing it, etc. to keep the original coating strong.   

Unless you are exclusively using bees wax for waxing it you'll be shedding non bio degradable paraffin wax everywhere. Even fjallraven's wax is a blend of bees wax and parrafin. 

that guy named seb wrote:

Unless you are exclusively using bees wax for waxing it you'll be shedding non bio degradable paraffin wax everywhere. Even fjallraven's wax is a blend of bees wax and parrafin. 

PFAS are a very different concern than microplastics. They are akin to heavy metals in that they bioaccumulate and have severe consequences at very low levels due to how they interact at a molecular level.

(How they interact with water molecules is what makes them so damn useful for DWR, but they also interact with organic molecules, ozone, and many other things in interesting and harmful ways).

They are still used extensively in packaging, non-stick coatings (pans are what you might think of, but this is dwarfed by industrial usage), plumbing/gaskets, refrigerants, aerosols, et al, so I’m not too worked up about eliminating them from outdoor apparel, but they are definitely bad.

The biggest consequence we’ve seen so far has been damage to the ozone layer, but this has been somewhat mitigated by banning the most harmful PFAS from the most harmful applications (refrigerants and aerosols), but there is strong evidence that they can lead to a broad array of health conditions in humans.

The concern with PFAS DWR and ePTFE is mostly at the manufacturing stage, not exposure from wearing a goretex shell, but I don’t fuck around with reapplying PFAS DWR.

I’m pretty impressed with the knowledge on this chain! I would like to add that many companies are claiming to have “greened” the DWR process because they don’t use PFOA or PFAS, but like another commenter pointed out ,they are just using lesser researched alternatives that are still in the PFAS family. Personally, I am okay with using PFAS chemicals for my outdoor gear because I do think it helps it last significantly longer than alternative products and not wetting a down jacket can be life or death. I am all for phasing out PFAS chemicals from couches, cleaning products, carpets, toothpaste, food packaging etc. 

Also my toothpaste does a much worse job of telling me what weird surfactants it added than my outdoor gear and only one of those products absorbs through my gums. 

Eli W wrote:

First off, I’ll say that I’m really not concerned about the environmental impact of my hardshell— spread out over a ~7 year service life, the impact is negligible. Choosing to live in a small, well insulated house, reducing my meat consumption, and bike-commuting have a real impact on my environmental footprint, but as far as clothing goes I’m of the mindset that buying less stuff is a heck of a lot more important than buying the right stuff.
That said, here’s the current state of things: 

Membranes:

Goretex is beginning phasing out ePTFE in favor of an expanded-Polyethylene (ePE) membrane this fall.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timnewcomb/2021/09/29/gore-tex-announces-thinner-sustainable-membrane-for-apparel-footwear/

Electrospun PU (neoshell, ascentshell, futurelight) outperforms ePTFE in breathability, and is generally good enough as far as waterproofing goes.

DWR:

Most(all?) the big brands have at least stopped using PFCoECs (PFCs of Enviromental Concern), but this is a bit weasel-worded, since it doesn’t include chemicals which are similar to those that have been identified as environmentally harmful, but not yet individually determined to be. Long-chain PFCs (C8, C6) are the really nasty ones that stick around forever, and these are not being used for DWR anymore (which is part of why DWR on a new shell wears off quicker than it used to).

Patagonia has gotten some invective aimed at them for continuing to use PFAS, but my understanding is that they’re mostly just being more honest about using a broad category of harmful chemicals, rather than switching between related chemicals that have not explicitly been determined to be harmful. MHW brags that they’ve dropped PFCs, but they don’t say anything about the broader PFAS category. OR says they don’t use PFCoECs, but again that’s a pretty narrow category

Nikwax DWR doesn’t use PFAS, instead using zirconium acetate, but it wets out pretty quickly and needs a fresh application basically seasonally, so I get why brands are reluctant to drop PFAS entirely.

Very informed and informative post!

This is a big open problem for chemistry right now: how do we regulate and inform the public about use of chemicals, when people can simply switch to some chemical that works exactly the same way and probably has all the same problems, but we don't have the research to prove it?

Good on Patagonia for not playing that game and being honest about their choices.

Ashley Harper wrote:

Also my toothpaste does a much worse job of telling me what weird surfactants it added than my outdoor gear and only one of those products absorbs through my gums.

Ugh, tell me about it. I'm hypsersensitive to that whole family of chemicals and after looking at toothpaste labels for years, the only way I know for sure if a toothpaste isn't going to make my mouth start bleeding immediately, is if I've used it before. Mostly I just use Sensodyne but when traveling that isn't always easy to find.

Fun fact: the entire family of sodium cocoyl ___ate chemicals is made the same way as other surefactants, but they use coconut oil to make them. Somehow, these can be labeled as "all natural" according to the US government, so I pretty much can't use any toothpaste labeled "all natural" because they all use that loophole. Apparently, we're supposed to believe that, somewhere in nature, sarcosine is purified out of animal urine, mixed with coconut oil in a catalytic solution of alcohol and lye, and then recrystallized? Yeah, sure, all that happens naturally.

liquidoff claims non toxic

what about neverwet

these new hydrophobic sprays are amazing!

https://www.cnet.com/science/liquidoff-non-toxic-non-hazy-hydrophobic-fabric-spray/

that guy named seb wrote:

Unless you are exclusively using bees wax for waxing it you'll be shedding non bio degradable paraffin wax everywhere. Even fjallraven's wax is a blend of bees wax and parrafin. 

It's true that paraffin wax is petroleum based and takes a long time to degrade (though less than PFAS). Good point about thinking about wax ingredients too.  I never looked at the ingredients in the wax fjallraven gave me, will do that next time and maybe switch over to more degradable wax blends.  As far as I am aware though, it doesn't have any of the considerable toxicity concerns of PFAS, some of whom are now considered essentially unsafe at any detectable exposure.  Chemically, PFAS are just a really bad idea.  

tallguy wrote:

It's true that paraffin wax is petroleum based and takes a long time to degrade (though less than PFAS). Good point about thinking about wax ingredients too.  I never looked at the ingredients in the wax fjallraven gave me, will do that next time and maybe switch over to more degradable wax blends.  As far as I am aware though, it doesn't have any of the considerable toxicity concerns of PFAS, some of whom are now considered essentially unsafe at any detectable exposure.  Chemically, PFAS are just a really bad idea.  

Depending on the paraffin it may contain PFAS and PFOS.

Instead of waxed cotton I would suggest you switch to either wool(remarkable for shoulder seasons and winter) or ventile. Neither require any special treatment and perform significantly better. Your waxed cotton is essentially a plastic bag when it comes to breathability. 

that guy named seb wrote:

Depending on the paraffin it may contain PFAS and PFOS.

Instead of waxed cotton I would suggest you switch to either wool(remarkable for shoulder seasons and winter) or ventile. Neither require any special treatment and perform significantly better. Your waxed cotton is essentially a plastic bag when it comes to breathability. 

I'm a bit confused by this: isn't the function of the materials we're discussing, to keep you dry? Wool retains ~80% of its insulation ability when wet, but that doesn't really prevent the cooling effects of evaporation: getting wet while wearing wool can still be pretty deadly.

Or are you suggesting waxed wool? Is that a thing?

Not disagreeing with you, just asking questions because I don't know.

David K wrote:

I'm a bit confused by this: isn't the function of the materials we're discussing, to keep you dry? Wool retains ~80% of its insulation ability when wet, but that doesn't really prevent the cooling effects of evaporation: getting wet while wearing wool can still be pretty deadly.

Or are you suggesting waxed wool? Is that a thing?

Not disagreeing with you, just asking questions because I don't know.

If you are familiar with pertex pile it will be more familiar of a concept. Wool does a fantastic job of feeling dry even when completely soaked. This is down to the unique structure of the fibre that causes wool to be pulled to into the cortex of the fibre instead of sitting on the outer cuticle. 

What wool you use is up to you, but if you do use wool for actual performance I suggest a lanolin wash which will dramatically help it's water resistance at the cost of silky smooth comfort. 

Fishermen used to wear densely knit thick wool sweaters with unprocessed wool, this wool would be thick with lanolin, wind resistant and very water resistant it did them fine for hundreds of years.

While synthetic garments are cheaper more easily manufactured, more consistent, lighter weight and in general just perform better, traditionally constructed clothing provides more than adequate performance for simply walking around town or going cragging there is no need to bust out the dead bird or patagucci $800 goretex jacket. 

Its also worth noting that waxed cotton for clothing is a relatively modern invention only seeing widespread adoption after the 1920s when paraffin was added to the wax which made it usable for longer and in a greater variety of weather conditions. Its just a cheap alternative to leather, wool and ventile. 

that guy named seb wrote:

Depending on the paraffin it may contain PFAS and PFOS.

Instead of waxed cotton I would suggest you switch to either wool(remarkable for shoulder seasons and winter) or ventile. Neither require any special treatment and perform significantly better. Your waxed cotton is essentially a plastic bag when it comes to breathability. 

Ventile uses PFAS DWR 

Eli W wrote:

Ventile uses PFAS DWR 

If you have found an example of ventile using DWR they're misusing the fabric. Ventile has no need for DWR and only serves to delay the inevitable wet out that is required for Ventile to become waterproof. Ventile was developed long before DWR and has no need for it. 

Just checked the manufacturer of ventile, they are now PFC free and therefore PFAS free.

Eli W wrote:

The biggest consequence we’ve seen so far has been damage to the ozone layer, but this has been somewhat mitigated by banning the most harmful PFAS from the most harmful applications (refrigerants and aerosols), but there is strong evidence that they can lead to a broad array of health conditions in humans..

Which Perfluoro compounds impact the stratospheric ozone layer?  My understanding was there needed to be a Chlorine (or Bromine) atom on the molecule to impact ozone abundance.

Philippe Queiroz wrote:

I think fjallraven is using only wax now if im not mistaken. 

https://youtu.be/VTsAFrTWMqA

This video says a few things about.its more environmentally friendly. But not as good as gore tex

And about nikwax not having the "bad chemicals" i saw somewhere that 303 fabric guard is the best dwr on the market, being the closest to the factory dwr, at the expense of being solvent based. Never tried tho, but i would totally use if that means using less product overall and if it lasted longer. 

Untrue. Fjällräven has a line of waterproof garments made from polyesters or polyurethane treated with a PFC-free DWR.