PFAS20/ 100Bad
Overall12/ 100Bad
Hestra CZone Mountain 3 Finger

Hestra · Waterproof Winter Gloves

Hestra CZone Mountain 3 Finger

Bad

Wait for Hestra to disclose water-repellent coating chemistry or provide third-party PFAS testing.

Verdict: SkipLeather/synthetic gloves with unknown water-repellent coating chemistry pose PFAS uncertainty; other hazard profiles manageable with proper maintenance and disclosure awareness.

Hestra CZone mountain gloves use a water-repellent coating finish, historically linked to PFAS. The brand offers no public disclosure of water-repellent coating chemistry or PFAS status. Without lab testing or transparency, these gloves carry moderate PFAS concern.

The safe swap

Patagonia R4 Yulex Regulator Three Finger Mitts

Patagonia

Patagonia R4 Yulex Regulator Three Finger Mitts

90/100 safety

90Excellent

Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned Excellent.

Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.

Material

Leather palm, synthetic/nylon back with water-repellent coating water-repellent treatment

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

What’s concerning

♾️

Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment

Water-repellent treatments have historically contained PFAS chemicals.

65/ 100
♾️

Category baseline

PFAS exposure happens more often with clothing products.

70/ 100
♾️

No PFAS disclosure

The company has not publicly discussed PFAS in this product.

85/ 100
♾️

PFAS

Hestra has not publicly disclosed water-repellent coating chemistry; historical industry standard is C6/C8 PFAS, though fluorine-free alternatives exist. Skin contact during normal wear and leaching during laundering are the main exposure routes.

Source: ATSDR
70/ 100
🫧

Coating degradation and microfiber shedding

Repeated wear and washing will gradually degrade the water-repellent coating finish and nylon backing, releasing synthetic microfibers into wastewater and potentially onto skin. This is a known issue across all synthetic-backed gloves but is not unique to Hestra.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

No public record of formaldehyde-based resin finishes or excessive formaldehyde in Hestra gloves. Leather and nylon can be treated with formaldehyde for wrinkle resistance, but winter gloves do not typically require such finishing, and no complaints on file.

Source: ATSDR
95/ 100

Azo dyes in nylon or leather dyeing

Hestra does not disclose dye chemistry. Azo dyes are regulated in the EU and tested for carcinogenic breakdown products, but no specific violations or concerns have been documented for this brand's gloves. Skin contact with dyes is minimal on hand wear.

95/ 100
⛏️

Heavy metals

Leather is treated with chromium or vegetable-based tanning agents; Hestra does not disclose tanning chemistry. Chromium-III (the standard tanning agent in most commercial leather) has low bioavailability through skin contact and is not a documented concern for glove wear. No brand-specific incidents on record.

Source: FDA
95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

The CZone Mountain 3 Finger combines leather on the palm (a natural material with established durability) with nylon/synthetic on the back treated with a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish. The water-repellent coating treatment is the critical unknown: most commercial winter glove water-repellent coating finishes historically relied on C6 or C8 PFAS compounds, though some brands have shifted to fluorine-free alternatives. Hestra's silence on which chemistry they use means you cannot rule out PFAS exposure during normal wear and laundering.

The brand's record and disclosure

Hestra is a Swedish glove manufacturer with a heritage reputation but has not published detailed material safety disclosures, third-party testing results for PFAS, or commitment to PFAS-free alternatives on their public channels as of available records. No major recalls or documented health incidents linked to this specific model are on file. The brand's opacity on water-repellent coating chemistry is a red flag in an industry where competitors (e.g., some premium outdoor brands) now disclose fluorine-free water-repellent coating use; silence suggests either legacy chemistry or indifference to consumer transparency.

How it compares in its category

Winter gloves in this tier (leather palm, synthetic back, three-finger design) typically compete on durability and water resistance. Many mainstream competitors use identical water-repellent coating formulations without disclosure. Brands marketing explicitly as 'PFAS-free' or 'fluorine-free water-repellent coating' are increasingly common at similar price points, making Hestra's lack of clarity a competitive disadvantage for risk-conscious buyers rather than a unique problem. The leather/synthetic hybrid is standard and not a differentiator for safety.

If you buy it

Wash these gloves infrequently and in cold water to minimize shedding of water-repellent coating finish into wastewater. Avoid machine drying and heat above room temperature, which can degrade the nylon backing and potentially release volatile compounds from the water-repellent coating coat. Replace when the water-repellent property visibly fails (water beading disappears) rather than retreating, as re-application may introduce different formulations you cannot verify. Consider requesting PFAS test results from Hestra before purchase; lack of response should inform your decision.

What we don’t know

Basis
Model estimate, 45% confidence, not a lab result
Lab test
None on record for this exact product
Brand statement
Hestra has made none

Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.

Safer alternatives in Waterproof Winter Gloves

Patagonia R4 Yulex Regulator Three Finger Mitts

Patagonia

R4 Yulex Regulator Three Finger Mitts

Yulex (synthetic rubber), neoprene-free alternative

PFAS Grade90Excellent
Overall Grade82Excellent

Coating degradation and water-repellency loss

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Allergen potential from Yulex itself

Limited concern

70

Lower PFAS concern; Yulex is a known PFAS-reduction choice, independent verification absent.

Risky category by default

Better Sweater Gloves Patagonia Women's

Patagonia

Better Sweater Gloves Patagonia Women's

Polyester fleece (recycled)

PFAS Grade65Good
Good

Lower PFAS concern; fleece gloves rarely need water-repellent coating, but Patagonia has not publicly disclosed PFAS policy.

Risky category by default

More waterproof winter gloves grades

How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.