PFAS20/ 100Bad
Overall12/ 100Bad
Patagonia Men's Outdoor Everyday Pants

Patagonia · Hiking Pants

Patagonia Men's Outdoor Everyday Pants

Bad

Lower risk than legacy gear, but Patagonia leaves water-repellent coating treatment specifics undisclosed.

Verdict: SkipNylon blend with undisclosed water-repellent coating poses moderate PFAS uncertainty; no established toxicity issues in textiles beyond standard outdoor-gear concerns; strong brand transparency track record mitigates risk.

These nylon pants have a water-repellent coating water-repellent finish. Patagonia has phased out legacy C8 fluorocarbons but does not explicitly confirm PFAS-free water-repellent coating on this model.

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

Material

Nylon blend with water-repellent coating water-repellent finish

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

Patagonia's water-repellent coating formulation for this product line is not publicly disclosed. Current water-repellent coating treatments may include legacy PFOA/PFOS derivatives or non-fluorinated alternatives; without transparency, consumer exposure cannot be ruled out, though dermal absorption from finished textiles is negligible compared to manufacturing wastewater.

Source: ATSDR
70/ 100
🫧

Microfiber shedding from nylon

Nylon textiles shed microfibers during washing; this is environmental concern rather than direct consumer hazard. Wear-related shedding during use is minimal. Washing in a microfiber catch bag reduces wastewater load if concerned.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

Azo dyes and colorant toxicity

No specific reports of banned azo dyes (those cleaving to carcinogenic amines) in Patagonia nylon apparel. Bluesign certification used in many of Patagonia's lines restricts azo dyes, though certification scope varies by product; this specific SKU's dye sourcing is not independently verified.

95/ 100
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Nylon does not require formaldehyde-based finish resins for durability or water resistance. No evidence of formaldehyde-releasing treatments in this product class. Residual formaldehyde from manufacturing may be present but typically volatile and washes out in first few uses.

Source: ATSDR
95/ 100
⛏️

Heavy metals

Patagonia's supply audits and Bluesign membership reduce likelihood of cadmium, lead, or chromium in dyes, though testing is not product-specific and publicly available. No recalls or safety findings specific to Patagonia nylon apparel.

Source: FDA
95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

These pants are a nylon blend (likely 88% nylon, 12% spandex based on typical Patagonia construction) treated with a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish. Nylon itself is chemically stable and does not leach toxic substances under normal wear. The water-repellent coating finish is the critical unknown: it may contain PFOA/PFOS-class fluorocarbons or newer alternatives like fluorine-free wax blends, but Patagonia does not publicly specify which chemistry is used in this product line.

The brand's record and disclosure

Patagonia publishes annual environmental reports and has committed to phasing out intentional PFAS in finished products since 2019, though implementation timelines vary by product. The company does not routinely disclose water-repellent coating chemistry at the SKU level, which limits independent verification. No recalls or safety incidents are on record for this specific product or Patagonia's nylon apparel generally. The brand's overall supply-chain auditing and third-party certification (Bluesign, Fair Trade) suggests operational accountability, though PFAS specifics remain voluntarily opaque.

How it compares in its category

Outdoor hiking pants in this price range ($99-$150) typically use nylon with fluorocarbon water-repellent coating; Patagonia's position is middle-of-the-road. Brands like Fjallraven and some REI Co-op lines are equally opaque on water-repellent coating chemistry. Higher-end competitors (Arc'teryx, The North Face premium lines) also rarely disclose specific fluorine alternatives. Budget competitors may use cheaper formulations with greater environmental persistence, though consumer exposure risk is similar across the category.

If you buy it

Wash in cool water with mild detergent and avoid high heat; nylon degrades under prolonged hot water or dryer exposure, though no chemical hazard results from degradation itself. Re-apply water-repellent coating treatment every 50-100 wash cycles using brand-matched products or generic water-repellent sprays (follow product instructions). Inspect seams and crotch area annually for stress damage, which is the typical failure point in hiking pants. Do not dry-clean, as solvents can degrade both nylon and water-repellent coating coatings without additional benefit.

What we don’t know

Basis
Model estimate, 62% 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 Hiking Pants

Columbia Women's All Seasons Pull-On Pants

Columbia

Women's All Seasons Pull-On Pants

Nylon/polyester blend knit, no stated water-repellent finish

PFAS Grade65Good
Overall Grade47Poor
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Limited concern

70
🫧

Microplastics

Moderate concern

45
⚠️

Antimony in polyester

Limited concern

70

Low-medium risk due to basic textile construction without brand transparency.

Risky category by default

Columbia Men's Stealth Spring Chino Pants

Columbia

Men's Stealth Spring Chino Pants

cotton-blend chino twill (no water-repellent treatment noted)

PFAS Grade65Good
Overall Grade59Good
🎨

Azo dyes (synthetic colorants)

Limited concern

70

Low-medium risk; basic chino without reported water or stain treatment and no PFAS disclosure.

Risky category by default

More hiking 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.