Both the European Union and the United States plan to institute stricter legislation, which may include outright bans, for PFAS. Whether these cover the entire class of chemicals has yet to be seen, but pressure is mounting and there is now strong momentum behind calls to phase these chemicals out for good.

Fluorocarbon-based durable water repellent (DWR) finishes used in textile processing are admittedly a minute part of a major issue, the impact of which extends far beyond performance sportswear. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (known as PFAS) number in the thousands and their unique properties have found uses in countless industries. But a well-documented body of science has found these highly persistent and mobile chemicals to accumulate in the environment and in living organisms. They are, beyond doubt, a source of global contamination.

Their continued use may now be on the cusp of change. In July this year, the state of Maine passed a law prohibiting the entire PFAS class, making it the first government body to enact a broad ban. It calls for a total phase-out by 2030, except in instances deemed “currently unavoidable”. This is a fitting, and possibly unfortunate, indication of the state of the discussions under way at agencies in charge of chemicals, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

PFAS compounds have up till now been regulated on a substance-by-substance basis. The EU banned PFOS ten years ago and PFOA in July 2020, as part of the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) framework. This led manufacturers to develop alternative compounds, introducing Gen-X as a replacement for PFOA. “PFAS are very prone to regrettable substitution. It is easy for the industry to make a minor change and produce a chemical that is not yet regulated,” says Jonatan Kleimark, head of the ‘No to PFAS Movement’ at the International Chemical Secretariat (ChemSec). The Swedish non-profit, which advocates for the substitution of toxic chemicals with safer alternatives, is pushing for the entire class to be regulated as a group. It is not alone. Last year, five European states (Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark) collectively called for a broad restriction of PFAS within REACH, which oversees the safe use of chemicals in the EU.

Some scientists favour a blanket ban on the entire family. One group of academics specifically argues that “thousands of PFAS have already been documented across multiple industries and business sectors. Managing PFAS one by one is neither feasible nor cost-efficient. More comprehensive solutions are needed, given that traditional approaches have failed to control widespread exposures to PFAS and resulted in inadequate public health protection.” Their position is reflected in the title of the paper, ‘Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class’ (Environmental Letters, June 2020).

The EU could set restrictions or prohibit the use of PFAS from 2024 or 2025, says Dr Kleimark. “PFAS could be phased out for all uses except essential ones. The issue now hinges on where you draw the line between essential and non-essential,” he adds. The military have benefited from exemptions deemed “essential” for apparel applications. This may not last. “It is generally accepted that within five or ten years, there will be a global ban on all these chemicals,” Sarah Berhanu, materials expert at the French Defence Procurement Agency, said at a webinar organised by textile innovation cluster Euramaterials in March.

The definition of future essential uses for PFAS will no doubt be a topic of intense discussion. It is hard, however, to consider durable water repellent (DWR) finishes in sportswear as essential. Even more so now that there are alternatives. “It is not such a big deal to phase out PFCs,” says Dr Kleimark. “But it will require companies to take bold measures, bolder than what we have seen up till now.” 

The issue of PTFE

A blanket ban on all PFAS chemicals, if enacted, raises the question of whether polytetra- fluorethylene (PTFE) would be included. “PTFE is a polymer and therefore not covered by REACH today. But it is made up of smaller PFAS structures and as such is a part of the PFAS family,” argues Dr Kleimark. It is a position shared by Matteo Morlacchi, co-founder of Altexa (with his brother Luca). “A ban on PFAS chemistry means a ban on PTFE as there will be no way to produce the material. A key motivation for developing our first-generation product in 2005 was to offer a PTFE-free alternative,” he says, in reference to Outdry, a lamination technology the brothers sold to Columbia Sportswear in 2010.

Following the same line of thinking, Sympatex says alternatives exist for PFC-based water-repellent finishes and PTFE-based waterproof-breathable films. This is what the Unterföhring, a Germany-based maker of a polyester-based membrane, sought to bring to the attention of policy-makers and the industry in an April 2021 position paper calling for a ban on PTFE in clothing and footwear. The paper details the adverse effects of PTFE manufacturing on health and the environment.

It is impossible to speculate on the decisions policy and law-makers will ultimately take with regard to PTFE. As a major user of this material, it is an issue WL Gore keeps an eye on. “Since these restrictions are in the early stages of definition, it is not yet clear how our products may be impacted. We will continue to follow their development while seeking opportunities to explain the value of fluoropolymers and to demonstrate how these materials can be managed responsibly throughout their entire lifecycle,” the company said in response to a request for comment. With regards to PFC-based finishes, it says it will, as announced in 2017, eliminate PFCs of environmental concern from its products. It added: “We remain focused on achieving these ambitious goals and will continue to monitor the evolving regulatory landscape over the next several years to determine what, if any, changes are appropriate.”

Innovation in processing

For brands looking for alternatives, new options are becoming available. Altexa says its new machines, which laminate a membrane directly to a manufactured shoe upper, glove or backpack, are more efficient and simpler to use. Green Theme Technologies (GTT) has recently raised $3.5 million in a Series B fundraising round to scale up its Empel technology, which applies water repellents (and dyes) in a dry or waterless process. Its PFC-free DWR is bonded to a textile substrate using heat, and can be applied on a wide array of synthetic fabrics. “Empel is fundamentally different from other C0 (C-zero) technologies because it uses polymer chemistry to encapsulate the fibres,” says Martin Flora, vice-president of business development. The term C0  has come to be used to designate PFC-free DWRs. It evolved from the switch from C8 to C6 and thus to C0, but does not mean the finish has no carbon in it, and can be misleading.

GTT’s technology will match the water-repellency of PFC-based finishes, but not their ability to repel oily substances. “Empel greatly improves soil release in regular wash-cycles,” he says, adding that an “extended soil release study” by GTT gave “very positive” results.

Altopel M 325-SC1 is a new DWR that Bolger & O’Hearn will be introducing at IFAI in November. The Massachusetts-based specialty chemicals company says the fluorocarbon-free aqueous finish is made from a “hydrophobic-reactive polymer” that delivers high water-repellency and wash-durability. “It can be applied across a broad range of fibres and blends, and specifically addresses some of the issues related to fabrics containing Spandex,” Shawn Honeycutt, business development manager, tells WSA. “Our products are very good at water-based stain-resistance, and we test all fabrics using a Bundesmann to provide real world results.”

Burlington, part of Elevate Textiles, recently launched PF Zero, a non-PFAS water-repellent finish, which it says, “remains unchanged” after 50 launderings. “Sustainability is at the forefront of all Burlington developments, with a commitment to responsible chemistries, recycled content and manufacturing processes that minimise environmental impact,” Nelson Bebo, vice- president for performance fabrics for the Greensboro-based company, declared at launch.

Rudolf Group has been offering non-PFC based DWRs since 2003. The company based in Geretsried, Germany, recently presented a DWR made from a by-product of cereal grain that would otherwise be disposed of and another one made from a mixture of plant extracts. While the greater part of the first of these two new products is made from recycled biomass, “it meets the performance and durability of conventional water-repellent textile finishes,” said Dr Dirk Sielemann, head R&D for Rudolf Group.

A research project led by Sofileta, a textile manufacturer based in Bourgoin-Jallieu, France, is looking into developing DWRs using non-chemical means. It is experimenting with lasers to modify a textile’s surface and thus improve its ability to repel water and oil. “We can create a lotus-leaf texture that, combined with wax-coated crystals, provides a hydrophobic surface and a self-cleaning mechanism,” said Jordan Inard, in charge of the project (known as Deperflex at Sofileta), during a webinar organised by French textile innovation cluster Techtera. The consortium is testing different geometries and coatings to obtain a hydro- and oleophobic surface on textiles.

Chemours, the maker of Teflon, historically made from PFC and now available as a biobased PFC-free DWR, did not wish to respond to a request for comment. The company does, however, expect to face litigation dating from before 2015, the year it was spun off from DuPont. An agreement was reached with the companies formerly involved in the making of PFAS chemicals, namely DuPont and Corteva, the new name for what was previously the agricultural division of DowDuPont. The three companies will jointly cover expenses of up to $4 billion related to future legal PFAS liabilities.

Changing of the guard

The trend is clearly to move away from using chemicals that remain forever. Polartec recently announced the full phasing out of all PFC-based finishes in its ranges. A process the Massachusetts -based company began in 2017. “It took four years, roughly, to offer a durable fit-for-use product to apply to our outer layers,” says Polartec global product director, Michael Cattanach. “It is a substantial part of our business, as we have become much more than a fleece manufacturer.” The company has developed different solutions for different substrates, from polyester fleece to nylon NeoShell fabrics.

“We are in the midst of a generational change in the industry,” says David Karstad, Polartec’s creative director. He points out that “many products were massively over-specified for their intended use”, while brands are now “much more focused on sustainability”. Once dominated by what Mr Cattanach describes as a hang-tag arms race, he believes it is time for the industry to refocus on technologies that deliver the required functions. Polartec has introduced its non-PFC finishes in various ranges over the past three years without receiving any complaints. “No one even noticed,” he says, comparing it to a “surreptitious, real-life field-test.”

While the list of brands and suppliers having pledged to phase out PFAS from their ranges grows longer, regulatory or legislative action will take time before coming into effect. Policy makers will need to decide whether to regulate this class of chemicals as a group or not, including polymers or not, and what uses will remain essential.

“If we had applied the precautionary principle, we would never have used this chemistry in clothing in the first place,” Eva Karlsson, CEO of Houdini Sportswear tells WSA. Polartec believes that innovation, rather than legislation, will ultimately drive out PFAS chemistry for good. Others, including Shawn Honeycut, at Bolger & O’Hearn, assume that PFCs will eventually be banned, but litigation or fear of litigation, could make the process go much faster.

Credit: Houdini Sportswear 

Share this story: