16851_Authority_Aug_2023

municipalauthorities.org | 29 PFCs, PFAS, PFOS and PFOA: The gamut of fluorinated chemicals reads like alphabet soup. First produced in the 1950s, these chemicals have subtly different molecular structures with similar functions. They’re strong, heat-stable, and water- and oil-repel- lent, which has made them a fixture in nonstick cookware, stain-resist- ant carpeting, food wrappers and fire-extinguishing foam. Brands like Patagonia have used these durable fluorocarbons as a water-repellent finish on most synthetic products. In waterproof gear, they’re also used on the membrane—the barrier in your garment that keeps water out. PFCs are good at their job. In gear, they’re so strongly bonded to the fabric that wearing it isn’t a risk. For apparel products, the primary problem is in the manufacturing phase, when the chemicals have the potential to contaminate water or food. Down the line, if that product is thrown away, the fluorocarbons can make recycling harder and impact soil and water around landfills. And they’re called “forever chemicals” be- cause they can persist for thousands of years. They might be coursing through you right now. Studies show that 98 percent of the US population has fluorocarbons in their system. There are also links to increased cancer risk, hormone disruption, decreased immunity and impacts to reproductive health. In 1999, PFCs got worldwide attention in a lawsuit against Du- Pont—which had been manufacturing these chemicals in Parkersburg, West Virginia—and again in 2019 in Dark Waters, the film adaptation of the case. Environmentally, the manufacturing of PFCs is increasing greenhouse gas emissions and wreaking havoc on soil, air and water quality. They travel, too. PFCs have been found in bald eagles and fish in the contigu- ous US, polar bears in Alaska, and pilot whales in the Faroe Islands. Given all the dangers of PFCs, keep- ing them in our gear wasn’t an option. In 2006, we began research around PFOA-free DWR (the most prevalent fluorocarbon at the time), started R&D trials with PFC-free DWR in 2015 and launched our first PFC-free DWR product in 2019. We were on it, sure, but we can’t argue without a little skepticism. As John Oliver said — about us and other brands — on Last Week Tonight: “All of these companies insist that they are working to remove PFAS from their products completely in the coming months and years. And I hope that that is true, but we have heard things like that before and yet, here we ------- are.” *** Eager to switch, in 2016 we pivoted from C8—long-chain PFCs then con- sidered the most damaging of all fluorocarbons—to the seemingly less harmful C6. Then new studies discovered C6 isn’t any easier on the environment. “C6 still contains fluorocarbons,” Scheff explains. “It’s like some plastics that take less time to break down. At the time, that was what everyone was doing and what our mills had on hand. Looking back, we could’ve done the work then to figure it out. It’s what we call a ‘regrettable substitution.’” (That’s common parlance among chemists — replacing a harmful chem- ical with something that’s, often unknowingly, just as bad. Like Sting sings in Another Day, sometimes “it’s hard to tell the poison from the cure.”) After the C6 fiasco, Patagonia chem- ists like Laura Hoch dug into the makeup of PFC-free chemistries to avoid more regrettable substitutions. Hoch had a connection to the work. She spent her early years in Parkers- burg, where her dad had worked for DuPont. “Not so fun fact: Yes, I drank the water,” she says. At times, other outdoor brands seemed to beat us to PFC-free chem- istries—except they hadn’t. Those products had tears, seam slippage and other mishaps before getting switched back to fluorinated treatments. Or they created some PFC-free successes, but not for pinnacle products that re- ally need to withstand the elements. The exact PFC-free chemistry we use depends on material, product and intended purpose. Ours are typically based on hydrocarbons (think poly- mers and waxes) or silicones. Once we had alternative chem- istries we’d be proud of, we tested them on our top five styles with DWR finishes, like Nano Puff® jackets. Solutions weren’t one- size-fits-all. One PFC- free option might work on nylon but not on polyester. And it wasn’t just water repellency we were testing. Was there chalking or seam Continued on page 48. PFC-free gear must pass the same rigorous tests as our other apparel, both in the field and the lab. We make it rain anytime we want using the Bundesmann water permeability test, which assesses water resistance. Photo: Tim Davis