By PFAS Authority · Updated September 22, 2026
Top grades to buy
Aisle
Super Hipster
APEC Water Systems
APEC 2-in-1 Pull-Down Kitchen Faucet
Aquasure
Premier Series 75 GPD Under Sink Reverse Osmosis Water Filtration System
Model-based grades, not lab tests. We flunk more than we pass. How grading works
PFAS in Waterproof Outdoor Gear Storage Bags, Which Brands Grade Best and Worst
Based on available materials and public disclosure data, waterproof gear storage bags from Marmot and REI Co-op currently grade highest among the products we reviewed, each landing in the "Good" tier with a model-based estimate of 65 out of 100 for safety. That is not a claim that either bag is free of PFAS or that it has been lab-verified as such, only that its disclosed materials and construction raise fewer red flags than most competitors we assessed. At the other end, a large cluster of hydration packs and duffels from CamelBak, Osprey, Deuter, and The North Face score "Bad" at 20 out of 100, reflecting heavier reliance on the kind of fluoropolymer coatings and DWR (durable water repellent) finishes that have historically contained PFAS chemistry.
This guide breaks down every waterproof outdoor gear storage bag in our database, grade by grade, with the materials and brand claims behind each score. None of the products discussed here have been independently lab-tested by our team, so every grade below reflects our model's estimate from publicly available materials disclosures, marketing copy, and industry patterns, not a chemistry report. If you want to run your own comparison across categories, our product finder lets you search by brand and material across everything we grade.
Summary comparison
| Product | PFAS grade | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Marmot Marmot Tool Box | Good, 65/100 | Lower concern based on reviewed materials, not confirmed PFAS-free |
| REI Co-op Trailgate Gear Bin Green 140 L | Good, 65/100 | Lower concern based on reviewed materials, not confirmed PFAS-free |
| Patagonia Guidewater Roll-Top Pack | Poor, 45/100 | Mid-tier concern, coating disclosure is incomplete |
| Patagonia Disperser Roll Top Pack 40L | Poor, 45/100 | Mid-tier concern, coating disclosure is incomplete |
| CamelBak SnoBlast 22 Hydration Pack | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| CamelBak Quantico Backpack | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| CamelBak Velocity Trail Hydration Pack | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| CamelBak Velocity Hydration Pack | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| CamelBak Women's Fourteener 30 | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| CamelBak Trailblazer Hydration Pack | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| The North Face Summit Series Advanced Mountain Kit 55L Pack | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| Osprey Metron Waterproof Bike Backpack | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| Osprey Sirrus 24 Backpack | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| Deuter Duffel Pro 60 | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
| Deuter Durascent 42+10 SL | Bad, 20/100 | Higher concern based on materials and category norms |
Why waterproof gear bags are a PFAS hotspot in the first place
Waterproofing is the whole point of this category, and for decades the cheapest, most durable way to make fabric shed water was to coat it with a fluoropolymer finish or laminate it with materials built on PFAS chemistry. Long-chain PFOA and PFOS-based treatments have mostly been phased out of major outdoor brands' supply chains, but many manufacturers shifted to short-chain PFAS compounds or fluorinated DWR sprays that are still part of the same chemical family. Association between PFAS exposure and certain health outcomes has been studied in various contexts, but association is not causation, and exposure levels from a stored gear bag are not the same as occupational or drinking-water exposure. We flag these products because of what is disclosed or omitted in materials data, not because we have measured chemical migration from any specific bag.
The two brands that grade best, Marmot and REI Co-op
The Marmot Marmot Tool Box and the REI Co-op Trailgate Gear Bin Green 140 L are the only two products in our waterproof gear storage database to reach a "Good" grade, each scoring 65 out of 100 in our model. Both are hard-sided or structured storage bins rather than soft packs, which matters, rigid, tote-style gear bins generally rely less on fluorinated DWR sprays and more on inherently water-resistant plastics or coated tarpaulin fabrics that do not need reapplication over time.
Marmot Tool Box. Marmot markets this as a rugged, wipeable storage tote for camp gear and tools, built from heavy-duty coated fabric rather than a fluorinated soft-shell membrane. Marmot has not published a lab-verified PFAS-free certificate for this specific product in the sources we reviewed, so our "Good" grade reflects the design category and available materials information, not a confirmed absence of PFAS. Pros include a simple, low-maintenance shell and a lower reliance on spray-on repellents. The main con is that Marmot's broader catalog still includes fluorinated products elsewhere, so brand-wide trust should not be assumed from this one item.
REI Co-op Trailgate Gear Bin. REI's own sustainability messaging has moved toward PFAS-free DWR commitments across parts of its co-op branded line, and the Trailgate bin's large-format, structural design similarly avoids the thin, heavily treated fabrics used in packable rain gear. REI's brand-stated PFAS-reduction goals are not the same as a third-party lab test for this specific bin, and we did not find an independent lab report confirming zero PFAS in the reviewed sources. Pros include REI's public sustainability roadmap and the bin's utilitarian, low-coating construction. The con is capacity and bulk, a 140-liter bin is not something you take backpacking, so it solves a different problem than a roll-top dry bag.
The middle tier, Patagonia's roll-top packs
Both Patagonia products in our database, the Patagonia Guidewater Roll-Top Pack and the Patagonia Disperser Roll Top Pack 40L, land in the "Poor" tier at 45 out of 100. This is a meaningfully different situation than the "Bad" tier below it, so it is worth separating out.
Patagonia has been public about phasing out PFAS-based DWR treatments across much of its apparel and pack lines, and the brand has stated PFAS-free goals for its outerwear roadmap. That is a brand claim, not a third-party verified lab result specific to either roll-top pack listed here. Our model's "Poor" grade reflects that the publicly available materials documentation for these two specific packs does not fully confirm which DWR generation or waterproof membrane is used in current production runs, which keeps the grade in the middle of the pack rather than at the top alongside Marmot and REI Co-op.
Guidewater Roll-Top Pack. Built for anglers and paddlers who need a fully submersible roll-top closure, this pack uses a welded, waterproof fabric body. Pros include Patagonia's broader PFAS-reduction commitments and genuinely useful roll-top waterproofing for wet environments. Cons include incomplete public disclosure on the exact membrane chemistry used in this model, which is why it does not score in the "Good" range despite the brand's stated direction.
Disperser Roll Top Pack 40L. A larger capacity version aimed at multi-day paddling and coastal trips, sharing the same roll-top waterproof construction. The pros and cons mirror the Guidewater, solid brand-level PFAS commitments, but no lab-confirmed, product-specific verification in the sources we reviewed, so treat "Poor" here as a caution flag rather than a failing grade.
The bottom tier, hydration packs and technical backpacks
Eleven of the fifteen products we graded in this category fall into the "Bad" tier at 20 out of 100, and the pattern is telling, nearly every one of them is a hydration pack, technical mountaineering pack, or bike-specific waterproof backpack, categories where lightweight fluorinated DWR coatings have historically been the default because they add minimal weight while shedding water and sweat.
CamelBak's hydration and technical packs. Six separate CamelBak products land in the "Bad" tier, the SnoBlast 22 Hydration Pack, the Quantico Backpack, the Velocity Trail Hydration Pack, the Velocity Hydration Pack, the Women's Fourteener 30, and the Trailblazer Hydration Pack. CamelBak's brand messaging emphasizes leak-proof reservoirs and abrasion-resistant fabrics, but the materials disclosures we reviewed did not include PFAS-free certification language for these specific models. Pros across the line include genuinely well-engineered hydration bladders and load-carrying comfort. The shared con is a materials profile that, based on available data, leans on fluorinated water-resistant coatings on the pack body, which is the primary driver of the "Bad" grade.
The North Face Summit Series. The Summit Series Advanced Mountain Kit 55L Pack is a premium, expedition-grade mountaineering pack, and it also scores 20 out of 100 in our model. The North Face has made broader public statements about reducing PFAS in some product lines, but this specific high-performance pack's public materials data did not show a confirmed PFAS-free construction in the sources we reviewed. Pros include genuinely rugged, expedition-tested build quality. The con is that performance-first technical gear like this often prioritizes water resistance and abrasion durability over PFAS-free formulations, and that trade-off shows up clearly in the grade.
Osprey's waterproof and commuter packs. Both the Metron Waterproof Bike Backpack and the Sirrus 24 Backpack score 20 out of 100. Osprey markets the Metron specifically around its waterproof credentials for bike commuting, which likely means a more aggressive DWR or laminate treatment than a standard daypack, consistent with the low grade. Pros include reliable weatherproofing performance as advertised. Cons include the same lack of product-specific PFAS-free verification seen across this tier, and the irony that the feature being marketed, waterproofing, is often the exact reason the grade is low.
Deuter's duffels and packs. The Duffel Pro 60 and the Durascent 42+10 SL round out the "Bad" tier. Deuter has a long history in technical alpine gear, and both products are built for heavy abuse in wet, abrasive conditions. Pros include durable, purpose-built construction. Cons are consistent with the rest of this tier, available materials data does not show a PFAS-free formulation, and the demanding use case (alpine travel, expedition duffels) tends to correlate with heavier fluorinated treatments industry-wide.
What to avoid
- Marketing language alone. Terms like "waterproof," "weatherproof," or "all-condition" tell you nothing about PFAS content. They describe performance, not chemistry.
- Assuming a brand's overall PFAS pledge covers every product. Patagonia's roll-top packs illustrate this well, a strong company-wide PFAS-reduction commitment does not automatically mean every individual product has been verified PFAS-free.
- Spray-on reproofing products. Many consumers reapply DWR spray to extend a bag's waterproofing, and a large share of those spray products are themselves fluorinated, which can undo progress even on a lower-concern bag.
- Hydration packs and bike-specific waterproof backpacks as a category. Based on our data, this sub-category graded worst overall, likely because lightweight fluorinated coatings are still the default engineering choice for sweat and water resistance in that niche.
- Assuming "Good" means PFAS-free. Even our top-graded products, the Marmot Tool Box and the REI Co-op Trailgate Gear Bin, have not been confirmed PFAS-free by an independent lab in the sources we reviewed. "Good" means lower concern relative to the rest of the category, not a clean bill of health.
If you are also evaluating other waterproof categories, our waterproof boots roundup and waterproof phone cases guide follow the same grading methodology and are worth checking before you build out a full outdoor kit.
Our pick
Based on available materials and data, the REI Co-op Trailgate Gear Bin Green 140 L and the Marmot Marmot Tool Box are the two products in this category with the lowest estimated PFAS-related concern in our model, each scoring 65 out of 100. Neither has documented third-party lab verification confirming zero PFAS in the sources we reviewed, so treat "Good" as a relative ranking rather than a guarantee. If your priority is a structured, wipeable gear bin for camp or truck bed storage, the REI Co-op Trailgate Gear Bin's larger capacity and REI's public sustainability roadmap make it our lead recommendation. If you want a smaller, more compact tool and gear tote, the Marmot Tool Box is the reasonable second option in the same tier.
For anyone who specifically needs a submersible roll-top pack for paddling or fishing, the Patagonia options are a middle-ground compromise, better brand-level PFAS transparency than the bottom tier, but not verified enough to sit alongside the top two. We would steer away from the hydration-pack and technical mountaineering sub-categories entirely if minimizing PFAS exposure is your primary goal, since every product we graded there landed in the "Bad" tier. Use our product finder to compare specific models side by side before you buy, and check back as brands update their materials disclosures.
Frequently asked questions
Does a "Good" PFAS grade mean a bag is PFAS-free?
No. A "Good" grade, like the 65/100 scores held by the Marmot Tool Box and the REI Co-op Trailgate Gear Bin, reflects our model's estimate based on reviewed materials and public disclosures. It means lower concern relative to other products in the category, not a confirmed, lab-verified absence of PFAS. We have not seen independent lab testing for these specific products in the sources reviewed.
Why do hydration packs and technical backpacks score worse than gear bins and duffels?
Based on available data, soft-shell hydration packs and technical mountaineering or bike packs tend to rely more heavily on lightweight, fluorinated DWR coatings and laminates to achieve water resistance without adding bulk. Structured gear bins and totes, like the top two products in this guide, more often use heavier coated fabrics or rigid plastics that do not depend on the same spray-on chemistry, which is reflected in their comparatively better grades.
Is there a proven health risk from using a "Bad" graded gear bag?
Research has found associations between certain PFAS compounds and various health outcomes in some studies, but association is not causation, and the level of exposure from casual contact with a stored gear bag is not the same as occupational, ingestion, or drinking-water exposure discussed in that research. Our grades reflect estimated PFAS-related material concerns based on disclosures, not a clinical health risk assessment for any individual product.
Now check your own stuff
See every product we’ve graded in this category, best-graded first.
Get the graded list, free.
The products we score each week, and the best-graded alternative in every category.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.