The North Face · Waterproof Winter Gloves
The North Face Women's Montana Ski Glove
Wait for North Face to disclose water-repellent coating chemistry; ski gloves typically use PFAS-based waterproofing.
The North Face does not publicly reveal whether Montana Ski Gloves use PFAS-based water-repellent coating treatment. Ski gloves routinely use fluorinated coatings for waterproofing. Without brand transparency or testing, assume elevated PFAS risk typical of winter sportswear.
The safe swap
Patagonia
Patagonia R4 Yulex Regulator Three Finger Mitts
90/100 safety
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
Nylon/polyester shell with waterproofing 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.
Category baseline
PFAS exposure happens more often with clothing products.
No PFAS disclosure
The company has not publicly discussed PFAS in this product.
PFAS
Fluorinated water-repellent coating is standard for ski gloves; North Face does not disclose chemistry. Wear and washing can release PFAS into wastewater and potentially into skin via moisture contact, though risk is lower than with cookware or food contact surfaces.
Source: ATSDR ↗Microplastics
Nylon and polyester shells shed microfibers during washing; this is a known environmental concern for all synthetic textiles. Wear triggers more shedding than chemical exposure. Use a wash bag or filter, or hand wash to minimize fiber loss.
Source: EPA ↗What’s reassuring
Formaldehyde / VOCs
No recalls or reports of excess formaldehyde in North Face Montana Ski Gloves. Standard nylon/polyester shells do not typically use formaldehyde-based dyes or binders, but cheap synthetic insulation liners can occasionally contain formaldehyde resin binders; this product line has not shown evidence of this issue.
Source: ATSDR ↗Azo dyes
North Face uses established dye suppliers and follows REACH restrictions in EU markets, which ban many azo dyes. No contamination reports on record for this model. Risk is low for a branded ski glove at this price point.
Antimony in polyester
Antimony trioxide is a polyester catalyst and can leach under high heat or acidic conditions. Ski gloves are worn against skin in cold/dry conditions, not heated or washed in acidic environments; leaching risk is negligible.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
The Montana Ski Glove uses a nylon/polyester shell with a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) finish, a factory coating applied to resist moisture. water-repellent coating treatments on ski gloves are almost always fluorochemical-based (PFAS class), though North Face does not publicly specify which chemistry they use. The shell itself (nylon and polyester) carries minimal inherent toxicity risk, but the water-repellent coating application is the primary environmental and health concern. Insulation type (likely synthetic fiber or down blend) is not a significant safety issue for most wearers.
The brand's record and disclosure
The North Face has not made public commitments to PFAS-free or fluorine-free water-repellent coating alternatives across their apparel lines, despite growing industry movement toward non-fluorinated options (brands like Patagonia and Arc'teryx have begun transitions). The company does not disclose water-repellent coating chemistry on product labels or websites for most gloves. No major recalls or textile contamination incidents specific to this model are on record. Without transparency, you cannot verify whether this glove uses legacy PFAS (PFOA/PFOS), newer fluorochemicals (GenX, PFBA), or alternative chemistry.
How it compares in its category
Most ski gloves in this price range use fluorinated water-repellent coating; PFAS exposure risk is category-wide, not unique to North Face. Some competitors (e.g., Helly Hansen, some Salomon models) have begun testing fluorine-free water-repellent coating coatings, though availability and performance durability are still being proven in cold environments. North Face's Montana sits in the mid-premium segment; comparable gloves from Patagonia or Black Diamond offer either PFAS-free or transparent water-repellent coating labeling. The functional difference (warmth, grip, fit) between brands in this tier is negligible; choice largely hinges on water-repellent coating chemistry tolerance and brand ethics.
If you buy it
Wash gloves in cool water with mild detergent after heavy use to reduce any residual water-repellent coating reapplication need. Do NOT machine dry or expose to high heat, as this does not break down fluorochemicals but can damage the shell and insulation. Reapply water-repellent coating spray only if beading visibly fails (typically after 10-15 wash cycles); when you do, use a fluorine-free water-repellent coating spray to limit cumulative PFAS exposure. Replace gloves if the shell tears or seams fail, as moisture ingress negates the water-repellent coating benefit and forces more frequent washing.
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
- The North Face 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
Yulex (synthetic rubber), neoprene-free alternative
Coating degradation and water-repellency loss
Limited concern
Allergen potential from Yulex itself
Limited concern
Lower PFAS concern; Yulex is a known PFAS-reduction choice, independent verification absent.
⚠Risky category by default
Patagonia
Better Sweater Gloves Patagonia Women's
Polyester fleece (recycled)
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.