PFAS in Backpacks, Why Every One We Graded Failed

We graded 15 backpacks from five brands, including the most respected names in outdoor gear, and none of them reaches our Good band. Thirteen score 20 out of 100, our second-lowest band. The two Patagonia packs score 45, because Patagonia says 100% of its new products from Spring 2025 are made without intentionally added PFAS, a brand claim we have not verified. That still leaves no pack here we would call a winner.

The reason is the same on all fifteen. A backpack is expected to shrug off rain, and that expectation is met with a durable water-repellent finish sprayed onto nylon or polyester. DWR is the single most established use of fluorinated chemistry in outdoor textiles, and not one brand here names what its finish is made of. Patagonia is the only brand that says anything about PFAS at all, and that statement, not a different finish, is what separates its packs from the rest. This guide has no winner, and pretending otherwise would be the dishonest way to write it.

Summary comparison table

Product	PFAS grade	Verdict
Arc'teryx Granville 25 Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Nylon with a durable water-repellent finish
Arc'teryx Mantis 26 Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Nylon 6.6 with a DWR coating, type unspecified
Arc'teryx Alpha FL 20 Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Nylon with a DWR water-repellent treatment
Arc'teryx Aerio 35 Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Nylon and polyester ripstop with a DWR coating
Arc'teryx Aerios 18 Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Nylon and polyester blend, durable water-repellent
Arc'teryx Konseal 15 Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Nylon ripstop with a durable water-repellent finish
The North Face Borealis Mini Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Nylon with a DWR finish
The North Face Jester Luxe Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Nylon and polyester with a durable water-repellent finish
The North Face Recon Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Nylon and polyester blend with DWR
Patagonia Black Hole Pack 25L	Poor, 45/100	Nylon and polyester pack with a DWR coating, Patagonia PFAS statement
Patagonia Refugio Day Pack 30L	Poor, 45/100	Nylon and polyester blend with a DWR finish, Patagonia PFAS statement
Fjällräven Raven 20 Backpack	Bad, 20/100	G-1000 fabric, 65% polyester and 35% cotton
Fjällräven Skule Backpack	Bad, 20/100	G-1000 HD, a polyester and cotton blend
Fjällräven Kånken Backpack	Bad, 20/100	Vinylon, a polyvinyl chloride based synthetic
Peak Design Outdoor Backpack 25L	Bad, 20/100	Nylon and polyester with a DWR water-resistant finish

How we graded these packs

Every grade in this article is a model-based estimate built from publicly available materials disclosures and brand documentation, not a lab test performed by our team. A high score means lower concern based on reviewed sources, never PFAS-free and never safe. No backpack in this category carried published independent lab data. Patagonia is the only brand here with a public PFAS statement in our record, and it covers its two packs. The recorded concerns are short and blunt, a fluorochemical DWR coating and PFAS in a DWR coating. You can compare any specific pack using our PFAS product finder.

A guide with no winner, and why we published it anyway

Most roundups exist to name a best pick. This one cannot, and the absence is the information. When thirteen packs from four brands with very different prices and philosophies all land on the same grade, and the only two that do better get there on a brand statement rather than a different finish, that tells you the problem is the category convention rather than any one company's choice. Water repellency is simply how backpacks are finished, and most of the industry has not moved on it the way it has for some cookware.

Be aware of what this grade is not. It is not a claim that these packs are unsafe to own or carry, and skin contact with a treated pack is a far lower exposure route than food contact or drinking water. It is a statement that the finish exists, it is the reason the pack works, and nobody will tell you what it is.

Patagonia at 45, and what that grade means

The Patagonia Black Hole Pack 25L and Refugio Day Pack 30L still carry a DWR finish that our model counts as a water-repellent treatment. They grade 25 points higher than the other packs because Patagonia says 100% of its new products from Spring 2025 are made without intentionally added PFAS. That earns a brand claim credit and removes the penalty for saying nothing about PFAS. It is the brand's own statement rather than a test or a certification, and it covers new products, so older stock sold on clearance or secondhand may predate it. An earlier version of this guide graded both packs 20, and we updated it on 17 September 2026.

Two that are not DWR, and still grade 20

Fjällräven is the interesting case, because two of its packs are not finished the way the others are. The Raven 20 and Skule use G-1000, a polyester and cotton fabric the brand intends you to wax yourself with its own Greenland Wax, rather than a factory DWR. The Kånken uses Vinylon, a polyvinyl chloride based synthetic.

They still grade 20 because our records for these specific packs count a water-repellent treatment, and PVC carries its own separate questions that have nothing to do with PFAS. If you are hunting for a pack whose water resistance comes from a wax you apply and can see, the G-1000 line is the closest thing in this set, and we would rather tell you that plainly than let a uniform grade hide it.

What to avoid

• Assuming a premium outdoor brand has solved this. Arc'teryx and The North Face sit on the same grade as everything else here, and Patagonia's statement lifts its packs only to 45.
• Reading a recycled or bluesign claim as covering the finish. Those address fiber sourcing and mill practice, not the water-repellent chemistry on top.
• Paying more for water resistance you do not need. A pack with no finish, or a plain canvas or leather bag, avoids the question that drives every grade on this page.
• Treating a low grade as proof a pack contains PFAS. It reflects an undisclosed DWR finish, and no product here has published test data either way.

The same pattern runs through everything sold on weather resistance. Our rain jackets, outdoor gear bags and waterproof bags and luggage categories cover related products, our golf equipment guide found untreated leather beating treated leather by 65 points, and the PFAS hazard page explains why durable water-repellent finishes attract scrutiny.

Our pick

We do not have one, and we are not going to invent one. Thirteen packs share one grade, and the two Patagonia packs at 45 are still in our Poor band. If a DWR pack is what you need, the Patagonia Black Hole Pack 25L and Refugio Day Pack 30L grade highest here, on Patagonia's statement rather than on anything we tested. If a lower-concern bag matters more to you than weather resistance, the honest advice our data supports is to look outside this category entirely, at an untreated canvas or leather bag with a rain cover you can remove, rather than to pick the least bad DWR pack. If you want the closest thing here to a finish you control, Fjällräven's G-1000 packs are waxed by the owner rather than treated at the factory, with the caveat above. These are estimates built from disclosed materials, not laboratory proof, and no product here is being called PFAS-free or safe by us.

FAQ

Is there a PFAS-free backpack?

Not one we can point to in the fifteen we have graded. Every one carries a water-repellent finish or a synthetic whose treatment is not disclosed. Thirteen sit at 20 out of 100, and the two Patagonia packs sit at 45 because Patagonia says its new products from Spring 2025 are made without intentionally added PFAS, a statement we have not verified. That is a statement about this set and about disclosure, not a claim that no such pack exists anywhere.

Does DWR wear off?

Durable water-repellent finishes are designed to survive use and washing, which is what durable refers to, and they are commonly reapplied as they degrade. Our data does not measure how much finish remains on a used pack, so we cannot quantify it.

How much exposure does carrying a treated backpack actually cause?

Our grades measure the chemistry present in a product and how well it is disclosed, not a dose. Skin contact with an exterior textile is a much lower exposure route than food contact or drinking water, and nothing in our data supports alarm about carrying a bag. The reason the category still grades badly is that the finish is undisclosed, not that a pack is dangerous to wear.

Should I be worried about health effects from a lower-graded pack?

Any discussion of PFAS and health in our guides describes association, not proven causation, and grades measure estimated chemical concern based on materials and disclosure, not a medical risk assessment for any individual. If you want to reduce potential exposure across treated textiles, cross-reference products using our PFAS product finder.