Live data from Hacker News

PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

cyclingnews.com

81–90 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#81
post #18

Will the replacement for PFC be something very similar that is equally dangerous?

no, there just isn't a replacement for perfluorocarbons, that's all

perfluorocarbons themselves are among the least dangerous materials in the world, but the materials used to make them are very nasty indeed

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#82

Given that many cyclists also have deep climate anxieties and conservative (with a small'c') attitudes it sounds as though 1970's era pvc coated nylon and cotton will make a resurgence

Whilst PVC is most frequently made from salt and oil, in some regions of the world PVC is made without using oil feedstock at all (substituting oil-derived hydrocarbon with bio-derived hydrocarbon feedstock). PVC is therefore far less oil-dependent than other thermoplastics.

PE same thing…

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#83

Wow there's definitely a money making opportunity to hang on to and resell any goretex shakedry (single layer goretex, Columbia had a similar thing called out-dri). There's really nothing else like it that's as light weight and water proof yet breathable as it was. People paid a premium for it when it was in production. The value is going to skyrocket if it's not available new anymore.

I don’t think the material lasts long enough to have multiple users. My experience of ptfe and related chemicals is that they wash out and the material degrades over time worth wear, so they don’t stay water-repellent very long.

If they didn’t degrade quickly, they wouldn’t be such a threat to the environment.

Edit: Sorry, I didn’t mean PTFE above but PFC.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#85

Wow there's definitely a money making opportunity to hang on to and resell any goretex shakedry (single layer goretex, Columbia had a similar thing called out-dri). There's really nothing else like it that's as light weight and water proof yet breathable as it was. People paid a premium for it when it was in production. The value is going to skyrocket if it's not available new anymore.

I suspect you'll see knockoffs without the Gore brand. It was too effective and the original goretex patents have expired.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#86
Thinking about it for a minute, I’m not sure why we need fluoropolymers for waterproof technical fabrics. Unless I’m very much mistaken, PDMS rubber, polypropylene, polyethylene, and other materials provide similar levels of water resistance, without requiring the use of fluorine-containing compounds. Most explanations I read for Gor-Tex-type materials using PTFE (e.g., [0]) reference the hydrophobicity of the material, which is (IMO) similar to explaining why cars are powered by rockets because rockets are very fast. Cars are, of course, not typically powered by rockets because it is not necessary.

PDMS rubber, polypropylene, polyethylene, and PTFE all have very high water contact angles (a measure of the strength of interaction of water and the surface) and low water uptake [1]. I work with a stretched polypropylene film (Celgard — a material that is often used as a support/spacer material in Li-ion batteries) and it’s extremely hydrophobic. I used a piece of this film to build a bubble trap ([2]), for example (bubble traps typically use PTFE membranes…). It is not optimized for water resistance, so it does wet eventually, but it’s pretty good for “not trying”. Surfaces coated with PDMS (or glass coated with short PDMS chains — i.e., silanized glass [3]) are extremely hydrophobic.

The only time I personally use PTFE (or PFA, MFA, FEP, or ETFE) is when I need materials to be resistant (including both resistance to chemical degradation as well as swelling) to strong organic solvents (like NMP, THF, etc.) or strong acids and bases (like piranha, aqua regia, or a nitrating solution). These conditions are unlikely to be encountered while cycling.

This all said, I’m not an expert on the design of Gor-Tex type materials. However, I assume it is highly related to the pore structure of the materials to prevent liquid water intrusion (the same as for membranes designed for membrane distillation). Given the similar hydrophobicity of these materials, it seems like it should be possible to produce similar results with PP, PE, etc. And this is all before introducing the ability of nanomaterials and nanopatterning (perhaps transferred with imprint lithography [4]) to produce metastable ultrahydrophobicity [5] on the surface of materials.

[0] https://www.sungodtech.com/how-much-do-you-know-about-ptfe-w..., https://outdoorguru.com/how-to-en/how-does-waterproof-and-br... [1] https://www.accudynetest.com/polytable_03.html, https://omnexus.specialchem.com/polymer-properties/propertie... [2] https://static.wixstatic.com/media/ec0ae9_aacc723ea77d46619d... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silanization [4] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.8b03138 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting#Cassie–Baxter_model

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#87

Since I watched the movie “Dark Waters”, I’m trying to avoid those PFO(A|E) as much as I can. Threw all non-stick pans away and learnt how to cook with just cast iron or inox pans. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)

I ditched them a while ago as well. I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before.

Because in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats. Nutritionists declared all fat bad. We now know that to not be the case.

Your stainless steel, high carbon steel, and cast iron pans require using a small amount of oil/butter to have nonstick cooking properties.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#88
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, and you’re totally correct to point that out. Also “you know what he meant” is not a good reason to downvote you, because no, nobody knows what is meant by “chemical” if it isn’t literally “chemical”. One could guess that they meant “synthetic chemical”, as if that was somehow meaningfully different than a “natural chemical”, but it’s not and it’s just as wrong.

In most casual English conversation, “chemical” is implied as “[man made] chemical”, though I will admit that may not be obvious to people for whom English is not a first language. It’s obvious to (almost) any native speaker what is being said, and to willfully ignore that is to be pedantic for the sake of arguing.

The fact that it’s man-made is irrelevant. It’s not so much about the English language as it is about basic science literacy.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#89
post #31

I am not optimistic about the future of sustainable specialized materials. It seems very likely that the same structures that give modern high tech materials their unique abilities are the same ones that make them so environmentally unfriendly.

Given our ever-expanding definition of "environmentally unfriendly" and our ever-contracting definition of "sustainable", I'm actually not sure that anything actually makes the cut in the long run. Everything "effects the environment" in some way, after all.

This is more or less the argument of various population-reduction advocates. There's simply no way, with current or foreseeable technology, to sustain 8 billion humans AND still have a planet left a few centuries later.

If we want there to be humans in the far, far future, more of us need to start going childfree NOW, and encouraging others to do so, AND working on sustainable ways to have a decent standard of living without eviscerating the Earth.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#90

Since I watched the movie “Dark Waters”, I’m trying to avoid those PFO(A|E) as much as I can. Threw all non-stick pans away and learnt how to cook with just cast iron or inox pans. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)

Thanks.

Side note: I wish HN would change Wikipedia links to desktop by default. It seems most people post the mobile version. It is a bit annoying, because when you are on mobile, a desktop version gets switched to mobile by wikipedia; but if you are on desktop, you end up with a mobile version which is not optimized for desktop reading.

Post reply on HN