Home / Blog / Sustainability & Compliance

PFAS-Free Waterproof Fabric

What PFAS are and why they ended up on fabric

The useful part of the molecule is a fluorinated tail. Fluorine atoms are large and hold their electrons tightly, so a surface covered in fluorinated tails presents almost nothing for a water droplet to grab, and the droplet stays spherical and rolls off instead of wetting the fabric. Achieving that with hydrocarbon chemistry is possible but harder, because a hydrocarbon tail is less effective at lowering surface energy and it is more easily fouled by dirt and detergent residues.

The industry moved to short-chain C6 chemistry after long-chain C8 compounds, particularly PFOA and PFOS, were restricted internationally. C6 finishes perform well and are far less bioaccumulative, but they are still PFAS, they still break down into persistent short-chain acids such as PFHxA, and they are caught by the broad substance definitions now being written into law in several markets. That is the reason the category is moving again, this time away from fluorinated chemistry altogether.

Environment and health agencies describe the concern in terms of persistence rather than acute toxicity: these substances do not break down in the environment on any practical timescale, so releases accumulate. The EPA maintains a public technical and regulatory programme on the family, and it is the reference most compliance teams cite when they write a restricted substances list. For a bag brand the consequence is simple: fluorine in a product is now a question that gets asked at the buying stage.

The two jobs PFAS do on a waterproof bag

There are two distinct applications, and they are frequently confused. The first is durable water repellency on the outer face: a finish that makes water bead and roll off so the fabric does not wet out, which matters for breathability and for how quickly a bag dries. The second is stain and oil resistance, which uses the same low-surface-energy chemistry to stop oils and dirt penetrating. A dry bag needs the first only marginally and the second not at all.

That distinction is where the category gets its latitude. Because the water barrier in a genuinely waterproof bag is a continuous film laminated behind the face fabric, the face finish is cosmetic and functional in a minor way: it stops the outer cloth soaking up water and adding 200 to 400 g of absorbed weight to a wet bag. It does not keep the contents dry. A bag can therefore be PFAS-free and still carry an IPX7 rating, provided the film, the welds and the closure are specified correctly.

How much PFAS a dry bag actually needs

For most waterproof bag constructions the honest answer is none. A 0.5 mm TPU laminate with welded seams and a three-fold roll-top closure has no functional dependency on a fluorinated finish at all; the finish is applied because buyers expect water to bead on a new bag, and because a wet-out face fabric looks like a failure even when the contents are bone dry. Removing it changes the appearance of a wet bag and little else.

The places where fluorine genuinely still appears are not always the fabric. Coated zips, some release liners, certain dye-bath auxiliaries and a minority of ink and adhesive formulations can all contain fluorinated compounds, and a finish-free shell can still fail a total-fluorine screen because of a 40 g zip tape or a printed label. That is why the audit question has to cover trim and thread, not just the metre goods, and why a claim built only on a fabric test report is incomplete.

Three grades of PFAS-free claim

The phrase is used loosely, and three different things are meant by it. The weakest is a marketing statement with no test behind it, or a declaration from the bag maker that simply says no PFAS were intentionally added. The middle grade is a finished-product test for total fluorine with a stated detection limit. The strongest is a full restricted substances declaration covering the fabric, the film, the trim, the inks and the packaging, backed by third-party laboratory reports less than twelve months old.

The detection limit is the detail that separates a real claim from a decorative one. Screening for total fluorine by combustion ion chromatography typically reports down to 10 or 50 mg per kilogram, while older or cheaper methods report only down to 250 mg per kilogram, which is high enough to miss meaningful contamination. If a report does not state its detection limit, it is not usable evidence, and a low result without a stated limit means nothing.

Total fluorine, free fluorine and the tests behind the number

Two measurements are in common use and they answer different questions. Total fluorine, measured by combusting the sample and analysing the resulting fluoride, tells you how much fluorine of any kind is present, whether it came from a finish, a contaminant or a processing aid. Free or extractable fluorine, measured on specific target analytes, tells you which regulated compounds are present and in what quantity. A compliance programme needs the first as a screen and the second as a diagnosis.

Interpreting the screen requires a threshold. There is no universal legal limit for total fluorine in textiles in most markets, so industry practice has converged on working values: below 50 mg per kilogram is generally treated as background, 50 to 100 mg per kilogram warrants an investigation, and above 100 mg per kilogram usually indicates an intentional finish or a contaminated input. Each of those outcomes has a different remedy, which is why the screen is followed by a targeted analysis rather than a decision.

Alternative finishes: silicone, wax, hydrocarbon and dendrimer

Four chemistry families now do the job. Silicone, usually a polydimethylsiloxane emulsion applied at 10 to 30 g per square metre, gives strong beading and a soft hand, and is the closest direct substitute for fluorocarbon performance on the spray test. Paraffin and other wax emulsions are cheap, give good initial beading and wear off quickly. Hydrocarbon resins, often based on acrylic or polyurethane backbones, are the most durable of the non-fluorinated group in current commercial use. Dendrimer and branched-polymer finishes are newer, perform well and cost the most.

One route avoids the question entirely: specify no finish at all. On a bag whose barrier is a 0.5 mm laminated film, the face fabric can wet out without any functional consequence beyond a slower dry and a darker appearance when wet. Several brands now sell exactly this, and it is the only specification that cannot fail a fluorine screen for finish-related reasons. The trade-off is cosmetic and it should be tested with buyers before a range is committed.

What a PFAS-free finish costs in performance

The measurable cost is on the spray test and in wash durability. A C6 finish typically scores 95 to 100 on the standard spray rating when new and 80 to 90 after ten domestic washes; a silicone or hydrocarbon finish scores 90 to 100 when new and 70 to 80 after the same washing. Both are comfortable numbers, and neither affects immersion performance, which is governed by the film and the seams. The difference shows up in how quickly the outer fabric dries, which is a comfort issue rather than a waterproofing one.

The second cost is oil resistance, and it is real. Fluorinated finishes resist oily liquids because fluorinated surfaces repel both water and oil; hydrocarbon and silicone finishes are markedly worse at repelling oils. On a bag, this means sunscreen, cooking oil and fish slime mark the fabric more readily and are harder to remove. For a fishing or galley bag this is a genuine downside, and it is the main reason some technical categories have been slower to move than apparel.

A third effect is on print and bonding. Silicone finishes leave a low-energy surface that resists adhesion, so a printed logo or a bonded label applied over a silicone-finished shell needs a different ink system or a plasma or corona pre-treatment. Hydrocarbon finishes are more forgiving. This is a production detail rather than a performance one, but it is the most common cause of a PFAS-free range failing a rub-fastness test after the fabric has already been approved.

The regulatory picture: what changes and when

Regulation is moving from restricting individual substances to restricting the family, which is a fundamentally different compliance problem. The European approach under REACH has already restricted PFOA, PFOS, C9 to C14 perfluorocarboxylic acids and PFHxA, with a broad restriction proposal covering all PFAS under evaluation. Several US states have enacted reporting or prohibition regimes for intentionally added PFAS in textile and apparel categories, with different effective dates and different thresholds. The practical consequence is that a substance-by-substance declaration is no longer sufficient.

For a bag programme the safe planning assumption is that a total-fluorine threshold will apply to finished articles within the life of the current range, regardless of which jurisdiction it starts in. That argues for specifying PFAS-free now rather than reformulating later, because a mid-season change to the face finish triggers a re-test of the laminate, the print adhesion and the colour fastness, and it consumes far more time than getting the specification right at the start. Our REACH notes set out the substance lists in more detail.

PFAS in hardware, webbing and thread

Trim is where most programmes fail their own standard. Webbing is frequently finished with a fluorinated water repellent, thread may carry a lubricant containing fluorinated compounds, coated zips often use a fluorinated finish on the tape, and some adhesive and ink formulations contain fluorinated surfactants as levelling agents. A fabric that tests clean can therefore be assembled into a bag that fails, which is why the bill of materials has to be audited component by component.

• Face fabric and laminate: request a total-fluorine report with a stated detection limit.
• Webbing and binding tape: specify polyester with a non-fluorinated finish and ask for confirmation.
• Sewing thread: check the lubricant specification, which is the most commonly missed item.
• Zips and sliders: request a declaration covering the tape finish and the coating.
• Print inks and heat transfers: use water-based or silicone systems and keep the technical data sheet.
• Adhesives and seam sealants: ask for a restricted substances declaration, not a general compliance letter.
• Packaging and hang tags: fluorinated coatings on paper are rare but they do appear in food-grade stock.

Documents and certificates to request

A credible file contains four things: a restricted substances declaration signed by the party that controls the specification, laboratory reports dated within twelve months for the fabric and the finished bag, a bill of materials listing every component with its own compliance status, and any third-party certification held on the inputs. Certifications such as OEKO-TEX or bluesign screen inputs rather than finished articles, so they reduce testing load but they do not replace a product-level screen.

Two practical checks make the file usable. First, confirm that the laboratory report was produced on a production sample and not on a laboratory hand sample, because finishes applied at mill scale and at pilot scale can differ. Second, keep the report with the purchase order rather than in a shared folder, so that a specific shipment can be traced to a specific test. Audits almost always ask for the second of those and rarely for the first.

Cost, minimums and lead time for a PFAS-free build

Expect a modest premium. Non-fluorinated finishes currently run 10 to 40 percent above C6 chemistry per kilogram of finish, but the finish is applied at 10 to 30 g per square metre, so the effect on the cost of a 20L bag is typically 0.3 to 1.2 percent of the bill of materials. Silicone finishes are close to cost-neutral, hydrocarbon resins sit at the upper end of that range, and dendrimer finishes are two to three times the cost of C6 and are used on premium ranges only.

Lead time is the bigger consideration. Non-fluorinated finishes are now stock items at most mills, so the fabric itself adds little delay, but a new finish changes the lamination and printing parameters and that means a fresh sampling cycle. Plan on 6 to 10 working days for a sample and 35 to 50 days for bulk on a new specification, and add two weeks if the range needs a print adhesion test on the new surface. Getting the finish decided at the same time as the shell avoids a second cycle.

Care that keeps a PFAS-free finish working

Non-fluorinated finishes need slightly more careful care than fluorinated ones, because they rely more on the physical arrangement of the surface and less on extreme low surface energy. Wash with a pH-neutral technical fabric wash rather than a standard detergent, because detergent residues and fabric softener coat the finish and kill the beading. Rinse twice. Avoid high heat, which can redistribute a wax or silicone finish unevenly and leave patchy water absorption.

Beading can be restored. A tumble on low heat for 20 minutes or a warm iron over a cloth reactivates most hydrocarbon and wax finishes by reorienting the molecules at the surface, and it typically recovers 10 to 20 points of spray rating. Silicone finishes recover less well from heat and respond better to a re-application from an aqueous spray. None of this affects the waterproof barrier; it is entirely about how the outer fabric behaves in rain and how quickly the bag dries afterwards.

A buyer checklist for PFAS-free waterproof fabric

Six questions in the specification stage prevent almost every downstream problem. What is the barrier, and is a finish needed at all? Which components in the bill of materials could carry fluorine? What is the detection limit of the test being offered? Does the finish affect print adhesion or bonding? What is the wash durability of the finish after ten cycles? And who signs the declaration that covers the assembled product?

• State the barrier first: film thickness, seam type and closure, independent of any finish.
• List every component that could carry fluorine, including thread, webbing, inks and packaging.
• Require a stated detection limit on every fluorine report, ideally 10 to 50 mg per kilogram.
• Test print adhesion and rub fastness on the new finish before approving the artwork.
• Ask for the spray rating after ten washes, not only the rating when new.
• Keep the laboratory report attached to the purchase order for the matching shipment.
• Re-test annually, because mills change auxiliary chemistry without notice.

For ranges in production volume, the sampling question is worth planning as carefully as the chemistry. Our waterproof line has run since 2014 in an SGS-verified 4,950 m2 facility with 149 machines across seven lines and a 200,000 piece monthly capacity, and a PFAS-free specification normally means one extra sampling round to lock the lamination and print parameters: 6 to 10 working days for samples, 35 to 50 days for bulk, FOB Xiamen, at a 500 piece minimum. The workflow is described and spray-test ratings are normally reported against the ISO water-repellency method.

The short version: on a laminated dry bag the finish is not the waterproofing, so PFAS-free is usually a small change with a small cost. Specify the film and the seams first, choose silicone or hydrocarbon for the face, audit the trim and thread, and insist on a fluorine screen with a stated detection limit on a production sample. Related reading: chemical migration testing, OEKO-TEX and textile safety, phthalate-free TPU and PVC-free alternatives. Our eco-friendly dry bag range is specified on the same basis, and the current selection sits in the full product line.