6 ms·

Say Goodbye to "Forever Chemicals"

63 points by aranchelk 3y ago

kmlx 3y ago
i don’t get something: why DWR and not proper waterproofing?
- kn0where 3y ago
  Breathability
  - kmlx 3y ago
    gore-tex already solved this.
    - wiml 3y ago
      With PTFE. I'm not sure what the vague term "forever chemical" covers but PTFE is a perfluorinated alkane and is pretty "forever"ish.
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      Gore-tex is the same as other breathable water-resistant fabrics. They uses DWR, a form of PTFE, but sounds like switching to something better. The difference with original 3-layer Gore-Tex is that membrane is protected so lasts longer.
    - _yb2s 3y ago
      Gore-tex only works if also coupled with PFAS DWR coatings on the outside. Otherwise the “pores” are clogged with a sheet of water, and cannot breathe.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  DWR helps keep the garment's face fabric dry, which makes it feel lighter and warmer. This is in addition to a fully waterproof membrane like Gore-Tex that sits behind the face fabric. DWR is also sometimes used by itself on some fabrics when the manufacturer wants higher breathability than you can get with a membrane, but still want a bit of weather resistance. A popular example from Patagonia would be the Houdini Jacket.
- Yujf 3y ago
  You need DWR because if your jacket gets soaked on the outside, your sweat will no longer evaporate through the jacket.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    This is the proper answer: when water soaks the outer (non-GoreTex) layer, it doesn't breath anymore. One of GoreTex's fixes for that was to introduce jackets that don't have the outer (or inner) layer(s). It's just one big sheet of GoreTex "laminate" without being laminated to anything. "GoreTex Shakedry" is the search phrase you want, though they don't make the jackets anymore (because aforementioned "forever chemicals"). It's unfortunate, too, because the Shakedry jackets are what Gore has been promising for 50 years: waterproof yet breathable. I have one, and I am going to be very sad when it gets retired. Packs small, completely waterproof (I've used for 50 mile running races and stayed bone dry), yet breathable so you don't stew in your own juices (see "50 mile race" above).
clouddrover 3y ago
Good. 75% of water resistant products contain PFAS. The less PFAS is used, the better: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/26/water-resistant-products-toxic-pfas-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/26/water-re... Drinking water also needs to be cleaned up: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/pfas-and-lead-lurk-in-us-drinking-water-is-tap-still-safe-to-drink.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/pfas-and-lead-lurk-in-us-dri...
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  even arcteryx is only now just starting to experiment with eliminating pfas use with some specific products
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    For real mountaineering equipment PFAS shouldn’t matter. The problems is everyone thinks they need mountaineering gear to go for a walk in a light drizzle.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      arcteryx is not only a mountaineering brand. they produce non-mountaineering "urban" and commuter gear, and have the veilance line as well. these items are probably much more widespread than the mountaineering gear and i don't see the problem with it
      - anonuser123456 3y ago
        Everyone buys Dead Bird because it’s marketed as mountaineering gear. Just go to their website… right now… https://arcteryx.com/us/en/explore/whoweare/inspiration/ https://arcteryx.com/us/en/explore/whoweare/inspiration/ It’s pictures of people skiing helicopter accessible back country and hanging off an ice wall in crampons. And all of their lifestyle adjacent segment exists under that umbrella. You don’t need PFAS gear while walking around town because you simply don’t need your fabric to vent extreme moisture build up to prevent death from hypothermia like the people in their marketing copy.
GloriousKoji 3y ago
So what exactly is replacing PFAS?
- aranchelk 3y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if PFAS are being replaced by more than one chemical based on application, but specifically for the membrane layers, there's this: https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a43241598/gore-tex-patagonia-expanded-polyethylene/ https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a43241598/gore-tex-patag... > That Hail Mary thrown out by Gore-Tex turned out to be ePe (expanded polyethylene): a new durable, waterproofing membrane that is just as efficacious at repelling water as Gore-Tex's original ePTFE formula — yes, that's short for Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene — but without fluorocarbons.
- dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
  > So what exactly is replacing PFAS? Good question! Something chemical that will eventually also be proven dangerous, but only after a decade or so of exposure… In another field, DDT was safe until it wasn’t, then came neonicotinoids…safe until they weren’t…and so it goes…
  - smt88 3y ago
    Polyethylene was discovered 125 years ago and billions of tons have been produced. We're surrounded by it all the time. If it's harmful to humans, it's not harmful enough to make much of a dent in our health or lifespans.
    - lmpdev 3y ago
      I mean you could swap out the units and you’re describing uranium
      - defrost 3y ago
        Sure ... "uranium" without the radon gas breakdown production, heat generation from steady persistant radiation, without an isotope that can be used in an atomic weapon, etc. All that aside .. just like uranium. Oh, except it's not a natural element like uranium that's been present as part of the earth for 4 billion years, it's a synthetic first created here by humans somewhat more recently. But sure. Just like uranium. The polyethylene family is not like the PFAS family being discussed here - the biggest environmental issue with polyethylene to date is that it requires the introduction of specific bacteria in landfills to make it degrade. It does seem that it can be treated to recover usable oil .. which is either a pro or a con - but no known health issues (unlike, say, uranium).
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
Jimmc414 3y ago
Better late than never.
local_crmdgeon 3y ago
Why not use wax or oils, like animals do? Is it a veganism thing? I know that you can make great paper straws, they just require beef or pork fat - so we get the PFAS straws instead
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Everything waterproof will be worse to some degree, but that's okay. We learn to make this trade-off all the time; can't fight the physics of elements. The more interesting area is in military applications, because China will continue to utilize PFAS technology and that gives a huge advantage in many areas.
- inamberclad 3y ago
  The military has not and will not give up things that give a concrete advantage.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    They rely on scaled-up manufacturing which is being shut down in the US.
    - inamberclad 3y ago
      This is true, but the military spends a tremendous amount to maintain the manufacturing they need within the US.

63 points by aranchelk 3y ago

kmlx 3y ago

i don’t get something: why DWR and not proper waterproofing?

kn0where 3y ago
Breathability
- kmlx 3y ago
  gore-tex already solved this.
  - wiml 3y ago
    With PTFE. I'm not sure what the vague term "forever chemical" covers but PTFE is a perfluorinated alkane and is pretty "forever"ish.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Gore-tex is the same as other breathable water-resistant fabrics. They uses DWR, a form of PTFE, but sounds like switching to something better. The difference with original 3-layer Gore-Tex is that membrane is protected so lasts longer.
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    Gore-tex only works if also coupled with PFAS DWR coatings on the outside. Otherwise the “pores” are clogged with a sheet of water, and cannot breathe.
snowwrestler 3y ago
DWR helps keep the garment's face fabric dry, which makes it feel lighter and warmer. This is in addition to a fully waterproof membrane like Gore-Tex that sits behind the face fabric. DWR is also sometimes used by itself on some fabrics when the manufacturer wants higher breathability than you can get with a membrane, but still want a bit of weather resistance. A popular example from Patagonia would be the Houdini Jacket.
Yujf 3y ago
You need DWR because if your jacket gets soaked on the outside, your sweat will no longer evaporate through the jacket.
- mikestew 3y ago
  This is the proper answer: when water soaks the outer (non-GoreTex) layer, it doesn't breath anymore. One of GoreTex's fixes for that was to introduce jackets that don't have the outer (or inner) layer(s). It's just one big sheet of GoreTex "laminate" without being laminated to anything. "GoreTex Shakedry" is the search phrase you want, though they don't make the jackets anymore (because aforementioned "forever chemicals"). It's unfortunate, too, because the Shakedry jackets are what Gore has been promising for 50 years: waterproof yet breathable. I have one, and I am going to be very sad when it gets retired. Packs small, completely waterproof (I've used for 50 mile running races and stayed bone dry), yet breathable so you don't stew in your own juices (see "50 mile race" above).

clouddrover 3y ago

Good. 75% of water resistant products contain PFAS. The less PFAS is used, the better: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/26/water-resistant-products-toxic-pfas-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/26/water-re... Drinking water also needs to be cleaned up: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/pfas-and-lead-lurk-in-us-drinking-water-is-tap-still-safe-to-drink.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/pfas-and-lead-lurk-in-us-dri...

wahnfrieden 3y ago
even arcteryx is only now just starting to experiment with eliminating pfas use with some specific products
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  For real mountaineering equipment PFAS shouldn’t matter. The problems is everyone thinks they need mountaineering gear to go for a walk in a light drizzle.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    arcteryx is not only a mountaineering brand. they produce non-mountaineering "urban" and commuter gear, and have the veilance line as well. these items are probably much more widespread than the mountaineering gear and i don't see the problem with it
    - anonuser123456 3y ago
      Everyone buys Dead Bird because it’s marketed as mountaineering gear. Just go to their website… right now… https://arcteryx.com/us/en/explore/whoweare/inspiration/ https://arcteryx.com/us/en/explore/whoweare/inspiration/ It’s pictures of people skiing helicopter accessible back country and hanging off an ice wall in crampons. And all of their lifestyle adjacent segment exists under that umbrella. You don’t need PFAS gear while walking around town because you simply don’t need your fabric to vent extreme moisture build up to prevent death from hypothermia like the people in their marketing copy.

GloriousKoji 3y ago

So what exactly is replacing PFAS?

aranchelk 3y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if PFAS are being replaced by more than one chemical based on application, but specifically for the membrane layers, there's this: https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a43241598/gore-tex-patagonia-expanded-polyethylene/ https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a43241598/gore-tex-patag... > That Hail Mary thrown out by Gore-Tex turned out to be ePe (expanded polyethylene): a new durable, waterproofing membrane that is just as efficacious at repelling water as Gore-Tex's original ePTFE formula — yes, that's short for Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene — but without fluorocarbons.
dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
> So what exactly is replacing PFAS? Good question! Something chemical that will eventually also be proven dangerous, but only after a decade or so of exposure… In another field, DDT was safe until it wasn’t, then came neonicotinoids…safe until they weren’t…and so it goes…
- smt88 3y ago
  Polyethylene was discovered 125 years ago and billions of tons have been produced. We're surrounded by it all the time. If it's harmful to humans, it's not harmful enough to make much of a dent in our health or lifespans.
  - lmpdev 3y ago
    I mean you could swap out the units and you’re describing uranium
    - defrost 3y ago
      Sure ... "uranium" without the radon gas breakdown production, heat generation from steady persistant radiation, without an isotope that can be used in an atomic weapon, etc. All that aside .. just like uranium. Oh, except it's not a natural element like uranium that's been present as part of the earth for 4 billion years, it's a synthetic first created here by humans somewhat more recently. But sure. Just like uranium. The polyethylene family is not like the PFAS family being discussed here - the biggest environmental issue with polyethylene to date is that it requires the introduction of specific bacteria in landfills to make it degrade. It does seem that it can be treated to recover usable oil .. which is either a pro or a con - but no known health issues (unlike, say, uranium).

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

Jimmc414 3y ago

Better late than never.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago

Why not use wax or oils, like animals do? Is it a veganism thing? I know that you can make great paper straws, they just require beef or pork fat - so we get the PFAS straws instead

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Everything waterproof will be worse to some degree, but that's okay. We learn to make this trade-off all the time; can't fight the physics of elements. The more interesting area is in military applications, because China will continue to utilize PFAS technology and that gives a huge advantage in many areas.

inamberclad 3y ago
The military has not and will not give up things that give a concrete advantage.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  They rely on scaled-up manufacturing which is being shut down in the US.
  - inamberclad 3y ago
    This is true, but the military spends a tremendous amount to maintain the manufacturing they need within the US.