What do waterproof running shoes, a non-stick pan, and your rain jacket have in common? Don’t Google it, because I’ll answer it for you here: DWR.
If you have ever gotten lost in an outdoor equipment store, you’ve probably heard the acronym ‘DWR’ thrown around once or twice — but what does it really mean? ‘DWR’ stands for ‘durable water repellent,’ and it’s the umbrella term for a host of active ingredients in your waterproof gear that produces that classic beading effect on the surface of your gear that keeps you dry. Teflon, Gore-Tex and Pertex — some other terms you might have heard while shopping that sent your mind spinning — are patented forms of DWR.
DWR and its patented recipes are composed of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). PFAs appear in the bloodstream of 98.5 per cent of Canadians and are known as ‘forever chemicals’ because they last so long in the environment. They’re also found in many common products.
You will see outdoor companies use the term ‘perfluorocarbons’ (PFCs) instead of ‘PFAs,’ and while that isn’t necessarily wrong, it is misleading. PFAs are a large class of 4,700 harmful chemicals used in firefighting foam, waterproof carpeting, snack packaging, and DWR. The distinction is important to note because although outdoor gear companies still talk about them, PFCs were a subset of chemicals banned in the 1980s because they were eating up the ozone layer. As a rule of thumb, when you hear an outdoor company say PFCs, think PFAs.
PFAs are compounds with a hydrophilic ‘head’ made from oxygen and hydrogen and a hydrophobic ‘tail’ made from carbon and fluorine. They are notoriously difficult to break down, and have one of the strongest bonds known in organic chemistry.
How do they work?
The reason that PFAs work so well is that they are chemically very unique, according to Roxana Sühring, a chemistry professor at Ryerson University who researches them.
“Normally, when you have a chemical, it’s either hydrophilic or hydrophobic. So it either loves water, or it hates water,” Sühring explained in an interview with The Varsity. A chemical usually can’t have both characteristics, and PFAs are unique because they do. “[That] is why it’s so loved in outdoor clothing, because it repels dirt and it repels water,” said Sühring.
Not only do PFAs have a unique half-hydrophilic and half-hydrophobic chemistry, but they’re durable too. The half lives of PFAs vary from months to years, which makes them persistent and bioaccumulative, meaning we absorb them faster than we can get them to leave our bodies. The longer the compound’s ‘tail,’ the longer the chemical’s life. This is why, for decades, the outdoor industry used longer-chain carbons like C8 — a chain of eight carbon atoms in a bond.
Recently, though, there’s been a push to move away from these long-chain carbons. Why? Because of their toxicity.
The move away from PFAs
On May 3, 2019, PFAs were identified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which led to 180 countries banning C8s. While Canada and the US were not among that 180, the announcement still caused a ripple effect in the awareness that spread across the outdoor industry in North America.
And they’re more than carcinogenic; PFAs have filled up quite the rap sheet. In 2009, the EPA described them as “persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic” and research has since found a link between PFA exposure and a long list of health defects, such as certain forms of cancer, pregnancy and fertility problems, hormone disruptions, delayed puberty, and bone density changes, to name a few.
It is also important to keep in mind that PFAs remain critically under-researched. Therefore, we don’t know the effects of every kind of PFA, let alone what they could do in combination. “We have like 5000 PFAs, and we’ve analyzed maybe 80, 100, if you’re really good,” Sühring said. These low rates, she pointed out, are happening in an era where PFAs research is “definitely taking off.”
To avoid bioaccumulation, chemists shorten the life of the compound by trimming a PFA’s tail. Starting in the 2010s, there has been a move away from C8s within the outdoor industry. Although a few companies even offer PFC-free options, such as Columbia’s ExtremeEco jacket, the majority have opted for C6 or C4 chains. Recently, massive companies like MEC, Patagonia, Arc’teryx and Gore-Tex have released press statements that favour short-chain compounds.
But are shorter chain PFAs any less toxic? “For all intents and purposes, no,” said Sühring. She explained that PFAs with a lower chain length tend to be more water soluble than their longer chain counterparts. “That just means that the lower chain PFAs are more of a drinking water problem rather than a food problem,” Sühring added.
Instead of being bioaccumulative, short chain PFAs are mobile. According to Amila De Silva of Environment Canada, PFAs can even be found in snow collected from “the cleanest place on Earth.” Because of these mobile short-chain PFAs, there has been a push to create a classification for “persistent, mobile and toxic” chemicals along with the “persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic” category.
It’s here that the problem with the outdoor industry’s waterproof gear reaches its crux: the gear the industry provides actively violates the community’s ‘Leave No Trace’ policy on an insidious, molecular level.
But they have new investors to think about, who may have different priorities. There are alternative forms of DWR, like NikWax, that can be used to create waterproof gear — but their lifespan depends on consumer maintenance. This begs the question: will today’s outdoors community retain the environmentalism of its self-ratified hippie hiker and climbing-trash founders? Or will it follow the lead of the executives with commercial interests and find a way to internally justify the environmental cost?
So far, the magnates of the outdoors industry haven’t willingly met the challenge. PFAs still do not have proper regulation in Canada. It’s up to Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to assess if a new product is toxic, and they make that assessment in only three months. The regulation is clearly exploitable and the industry knows it.
For the North American consumer it’s even worse — not only do the provided options degrade the realm you aim to venture into and stay safe in, but it can feel like there’s little to no way to make an informed choice. It is unfair to put the onus on the consumer, but it’s important to make responsible purchasing decisions; in North America, you “vote with your money,” as the saying goes.
I don’t expect you to be or feel responsible for what is happening. The least I can do is offer you resources, though, because in a climate that makes an informed decision difficult, you at least deserve to be able to try.
Some companies that are making an effort to move away from PFAs. Mountain Equipment Co-op, Arc’teryx, Patagonia, and Mountain Hardwear, for example, all use C6 carbon chains in their outdoor equipment instead of C8. Additionally, companies like Marmot, Columbia, Fjällräven, Paramò, Nau, Allied Feather + Down have offered PFC-free outdoor gear options for many years. If you’re interested, you can stay informed about the topic by reading reports such as the one done by CBC about ‘Forever Chemicals’, or the one about DuPont’s shady practices by The Intercept. I’d also recommend the Dark Waters movie on the DuPont scandal, or John Oliver’s coverage about PFAs on Last Week Tonight for additional watching.
