Leaving Traces: hazardous chemicals in outdoor gear

[Rico]

Hello everyone, I'd like to know your opinion regarding the use of PFC in the majority of the outdoor gear weatherproofing treatments. Those are not only environmentally hazardous substances and many of them are persistent in the environment, but they can be also dangerous for humans.

Here a very interesting research from Green Peace http://detox-outdoor.org/assets/uploads ... esting.pdf

[wayno]

you cant get away from them at present, the vast majority of bushwalking type rainwear and softshell wear is coated in PFC chemicals. for the DWR treatment to enable the breathability of the membranes to keep working byt keeping the material drier longer.
the outdoor clothing industry is moving towards less toxic chemicals or PFC free, the more toxic C8 chain chemicals have been phased out in some countries in favour of less toxic C6 chemicals.
if you dont like the chemicals, you'll have to do your homework on what you're buying

[Gadgetgeek]

I didn't read the link, but I would caution using a source like green peace as a sole information source. Without a doubt some of the chemicals used are less than awesome. And a person could avoid them to a certain extent, but its all a balance. none of the options are great, and at what point does effectiveness start to factor in? If the chemicals used are less effective, and more need to be used, or they are replaced more often, where does the cost/benefit ratio work out. I don't know the answer to this since I'm no expert in anything. I'm just asking questions.

[Rico]

I agree that Greenpeace has an agenda, like it or not. But the PFC has been discussed for a while now, this is just the most in dept research so far.

Wayno has a point, you can't get away from it at present. This happened many times with different chemicals in the outdoor gear industry. Usually when a large number of customers start to ask for less dangerous alternative, researches are financed and solutions are found.

[wayno]

a few companies are switching from nylon shells to high tenacity polyester, the chemicals stay attached to it longer than on nylon.

[Gadgetgeek]

Rico, also a valid point, at least research is being done.

I think a lot of the reason nylon is whats used most is just momentum of the market. Since early polyester stuff was pretty poor, but that's really changed now. As momentum changes we will get better and better products, who knows, maybe someone will manage to spin a very high surface tension filament that would make a coating unneeded.

[wayno]

nylon is stronger than polyester, better tensile and abrasion resistance and absorbs less moisture.

[Gadgetgeek]

But nylon absorbs water at the molecule level where as polyester doesn't. A lot can be made with the right filament shape and weave. I won't dispute its strength, but thats not always the deciding factor.

[RonK]

if you dont like the chemicals, you'll have to do your homework on what you're buying

And you'll have done a lot of homework and spent a lot of money by the time you have to thrown out all your expensive but contaminated gear and replaced it.

[Scottyk]

I didn't read the link, but I would caution using a source like green peace as a sole information source. Without a doubt some of the chemicals used are less than awesome. And a person could avoid them to a certain extent, but its all a balance. none of the options are great, and at what point does effectiveness start to factor in? If the chemicals used are less effective, and more need to be used, or they are replaced more often, where does the cost/benefit ratio work out. I don't know the answer to this since I'm no expert in anything. I'm just asking questions.

I didn't read the link , but.... why comment on it then?
The article seams pretty good to me, has references etc.
Just because Green Peace wrote it doesn't mean it isn't worth reading. Maybe it might answer some of your questions.
It is something we should think about as this stuff essentially washes off outdoor gear while we're out there.

[Rico]

For anyone not interested to read the whole report, this is what is all about:
Studies show that PFCs can accumulate in living or­ ganisms such as the livers of polar bears in the Arctic and are also detected in human blood.[6] Animal studies provide evidence that some PFCs cause harm to reproduction, promote the growth of tumours and affect the hormone sys­ tem.[7] In reports from 2012, 2013 and 2014, Greenpeace found that PFCs are routinely present in outdoor clothing [8] and shoes [9] and showed that volatile PFCs can evaporate from these pro­ ducts into the air. [10]

[Rico]

They found PFC contaminated snow in remote mountains, so it is a real problem. Companies like Patagonia advertise themselves as environmentally friendly, but this report shows that they contain some of the highest concentration of those chemicals.

Different story with Vaude, this link shows that PFC free outdoor products are already possible and they will become economically viable soon:
http://help.vaude.com/hc/en-us/articles ... nd-ecology

[wayno]

if you dont like the chemicals, you'll have to do your homework on what you're buying

And you'll have done a lot of homework and spent a lot of money by the time you have to thrown out all your expensive but contaminated gear and replaced it.

contact the manufacturer and ask them if their DWR coating is PFC free.

[Gadgetgeek]

Scottyk, you make a valid point. I didn't say it wasn't worth reading, simply that it would be worth also looking for other sources. I agree with all of your points.

What's the environmental impact of throwing out slightly used gear and getting new stuff? For how long do these products off-gas? Its like the argument that a Hummer is more environmentally conscious than a Leaf, once you take into account the battery manufacture. While I think you need to cherry pick the numbers to make that argument work, it illustrates the point that making new stuff isn't always the right answer. If the harm comes from use more than manufacture, then that needs to be taken into account. Simply finding chemicals somewhere doesn't tell us where they came from. Having the textiles industry in general clean up their act is also likely to benefit the planet.

I think people need to be aware of this stuff, so that they can make informed choices. DWR coatings are used all over the place, maybe we don't need to use them as much? Just like fire retardants in plastics, they are a generally bad idea, but the general public doesn't have a strong understanding of them.

[wayno]

DWR coatings are notorious for how fast they can wear off, if your rainweat doesnt bead water when it lands on it, then the DWR coating will have worn of from the material. i believe Nikwax treatments are supposed to be PFC free, check the label if you're going to reapply DWR to your garment