PFAS20/ 100Bad
Overall2/ 100Bad
Patagonia Men's Granite Crest Rain Pants

Patagonia · Rain Pants

Patagonia Men's Granite Crest Rain Pants

Bad

Medium risk. water-repellent coating presents concern due to moderate PFAS risk; Patagonia's transparency on chemistry is limited.

Verdict: SkipModerate PFAS risk in water-repellent coating; nylon itself safe if undamaged. Patagonia lacks transparent chemistry disclosure. Suitable with informed care practices.

These pants use nylon with a water-repellent finish typical of performance rain gear. Patagonia doesn't publicly disclose the specific water-repellent coating chemistry, though the brand has begun phasing PFAS alternatives into some products.

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

Material

Nylon with water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) 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

Not product-specifically tested, but nylon rain apparel with fluorinated water-repellent coating is well documented to release PFAS during washing. Patagonia's non-disclosure suggests standard formulations may include legacy PFAS compounds.

Source: ATSDR
45/ 100
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Nylon textiles sometimes use formaldehyde-based resins for wrinkle resistance or color-fixing, though water-repellent coating treatment itself typically does not contain formaldehyde. No specific recall or known issue for Patagonia rain pants, but dyes used in dark colorways can occasionally carry formaldehyde residue.

Source: ATSDR
70/ 100
🫧

Microfiber shedding

Nylon sheds microfibers during washing, as with all synthetic textiles. This is not a direct health hazard to the wearer, but contributes to aquatic pollution. Patagonia does not explicitly address microfiber filtration in care recommendations.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

Azo dyes

Patagonia typically sources dyestuffs that meet OEKO-TEX or equivalent restricted substance limits, and no incidents of prohibited azo dyes in this product line are on record. Risk is very low given brand standards.

95/ 100
⛏️

Heavy metals

Patagonia's supply chain audits and compliance with EU/US textile standards make heavy metal accumulation in dyes unlikely for this product. No known incidents reported.

Source: FDA
95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

These pants are nylon (polyamide) with a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish. Nylon itself is not known to leach harmful chemicals into skin under normal wear. However, the water-repellent coating treatment is the critical element: it provides water resistance but historically relied on fluorinated compounds (PFAS) to function effectively. Patagonia has not publicly disclosed whether this specific product uses fluorine-free or traditional PFAS-based water-repellent coating, which creates uncertainty about your exposure level during wear and eventual washing/disposal.

The brand's record and disclosure

Patagonia is generally recognized for environmental commitment and supply chain transparency in materials sourcing, but notably silent on detailed water-repellent coating chemistry across its rain apparel line. The company has not published a comprehensive PFAS phase-out timeline or detailed ingredient lists for water-repellent treatments on specific products. This silence on fluorochemistry stands in contrast to some competitors (Arc'teryx, The North Face) who have committed to PFAS-free water-repellent coating adoption. Patagonia's lack of clarity here suggests water-repellent coating formulations may still include some fluorinated compounds, though this is not confirmed.

How it compares in its category

Most nylon rain pants under USD 300 still use fluorinated water-repellent coating, so Patagonia is not an outlier on this hazard. However, alternatives exist: Paragon and some Fjallraven models now use fluorine-free water-repellent coating (wax or silicone-based), albeit with slightly lower durability over many wash cycles. Patagonia's reputation and durability typically justify its price, but buyers prioritizing PFAS avoidance would find more transparent options in the mid-to-premium segment. The real differentiator is disclosure, not chemistry alone.

If you buy it

Wear duration matters less than washing frequency: water-repellent coating coatings release trace PFAS primarily during laundry, not skin contact during dry wear. Wash separately in cold water, air dry, and avoid dry cleaning (which intensifies chemical release). Replace the pants when seams fail or abrasion is visible, not based on age. If PFAS exposure is a priority concern, contact Patagonia's customer service to ask directly whether this model uses fluorine-free water-repellent coating; their answer will clarify your actual risk level.

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
Patagonia has made none

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

Safer alternatives in Rain Pants

Patagonia Women's Torrentshell 3L Pants

Patagonia

Women's Torrentshell 3L Pants

Nylon with water-repellent coating water-repellent coating finish

PFAS Grade45Poor
Poor

Medium risk. Lower-concern choice within waterproof apparel backed by brand commitment. Verify specific batch before purchase.

Waterproof or stain-proof treatment

More rain pants 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.