Brand Outdoor Clothing Risks: NORTH FACE And Other Brands Find PFC.

The researchers tested 13 brands, 14 women and children outdoors.

And find these

All the coatings or films contain perfluorinated compounds (PFC) which are harmful to the environment and human body.

Many people like to buy assault clothes.

Its characteristics of windproof, rain proof and breathable are widely praised by consumers.

No matter in China or in Germany, casual visits to the streets show the popularity of assault clothing.

Germans are more reluctant to put up with their own "wolf claw" brands. On the streets of Germany, men and women, young and old, almost have their own hands.

However, at present, most outdoor clothing has a cost to protect against wind and rain, and its inner membrane and coating play a protective role while giving the environment a great burden.

Worrying outdoor clothes

Although outdoor clothing advertisements often serve as the protagonists of mountaineering, they show people the most natural aspects of human beings. Some famous outdoor clothing brands even produce "sustainable" clothing signboards, claiming that the products are produced with "green cotton" or recyclable materials.

However, the outdoor report of various weather chemistry released by the global environmental protection organization Greenpeace at the end of October on the German official website has caused people's deep concern: "Jack Wolfskin", "North Face", "

Many famous brand outdoor clothing including "Mammut" and other famous brands contain perfluorinated compounds (PFC) which are harmful to the environment and human body.

It is a kind of toxic environmental pollutants with persistent and bioaccumulation. It can enter the body through air, drinking water and food.

In order to make clothing become windproof, waterproof and breathable, PFC becomes

A raw material commonly used in the industry.

In order to investigate the number of PFC hidden in these outdoor clothes, the Greenpeace organization commissioned two independent laboratories to conduct a sampling test from June to September.

Investigators from Germany, Austria and Switzerland purchased 14 brands of outdoor clothing for women and children from 13 brands. The results showed that all the 14 products tested were coated with PFC. Among them, 5 samples of Jack Wolfskin, Kaikkialla, Marmot, North Face and Patagonia contained high concentrations of ammonium perfluorooctanoate (PFOA).

PFOA is one of the most dangerous members of the PFC family. In animal experiments, PFOA can cause fertility decline and promote tumor growth.

Vaude's children's coat, Mammut, Kaikkialla and Patagonia's coat were tested for high concentration of perfluorooctyl alcohol (FTOH), which can be converted into PFOA in natural environment or in human body.

In addition, some harmful substances such as plasticizers were also detected in some samples.

Among the samples tested, a Seven Summits child raincoat was the highest content of nonylphenol polyoxyethylene ether (NPE), and a child's rain cape of Northland was exposed to a large amount of two phthalate esters (Plasticizer).

In addition, two Vaude clothes were found to cause allergic reactions and to stimulate the respiratory isocyanate. There were also organotins that destroyed the immune system and reproductive system. The latter was also detected in Kaikkialla clothes.

Toxic heavy metal antimony is found mainly in Fjaellraeven, North Face and Patagonia.

Once the test results were exposed, they were scrambled by the media in various countries. In China, there was a heated discussion about "outdoor clothing containing poison".

The invasion of PFC goes deep into the blood.

In fact, the most worrying PFC in the survey has been artificial production for more than 50 years, and has quietly "invaded" the living space of human beings.

Nowadays, PFC, which did not exist in nature, has spread to every corner of the world.

From the Arctic ice to the deep sea, from human blood to breast milk, PFC can be seen everywhere.

But the harm it may bring to mankind is hardly known.

Experts believe that wearing clothes containing PFC will not be immediately pathogenic, PFC directly through the skin damage to human body has not yet been confirmed.

But this substance will accumulate in the environment and is difficult to decompose.

In fact, the content of PFC may not be high in outdoor clothing, but it can not be overlooked that PFC can be pmitted through air.

Testing shows that the PFC content in outdoor stores is high, so the sales staff of the stores may be more threatened by PFC.

PFC can also be discharged into the natural environment through factory wastewater. After a series of circulating pollution, drinking water will eventually enter the human body.

Therefore, it is difficult for human beings to avoid being attacked by PFC.

At present, almost all the earth's human blood can detect PFC, which is even found in cord blood and newborn blood, and its long-term circulation in the human body is worrying.

In animal experiments, some PFC can affect animal growth or promote tumor growth.

The latest epidemiological study has speculated that PFOA pollution in the PFC family may be related to overweight, fertility decline, immune dysfunction and thyroid diseases.

{page_break}

It is difficult to get rid of PFC pollution.

Unfortunately, according to the EU textile label management requirements, clothing manufacturers only need to specify textile raw materials (such as man-made fibers or cotton), washing matters and origin. People will not find chemical information used in clothing production process on labels, even if they are likely to remain in clothing.

The reason why the outdoor clothing is widely used is PFC because the fluorinated chemicals are widely used in the waterproof technology widely used in outdoor clothing.

NorthFace, Patagonia, Kaikkialla and other famous outdoor apparel manufacturers use Gore Tex laminates to produce jackets, trousers, and

And gloves.

Wolf claw uses the company's own membrane Texapore.

In fact, Gore - Tex or Texapore, all the two films contain fluorine.

Some textiles are labeled with "hazardous substances testing certificate", but this does not apply to outdoor clothing. Fluorinated coatings or films may still be harmful to the environment and health, but the so-called "certificate of innocuous" may still be obtained.

In fact, it is very difficult to determine whether the product contains fluorine. Some manufacturers claim to use PFC free polyester fiber (Sympatex) film, but this does not mean that the coating is equally safe.

In addition, consumers should be careful about those outdoor clothes that clearly indicate that they do not contain PFC. The test results show that researchers also detected a small amount of fluorinated chemicals in Fjaellraeven's PFC free clothing.

In fact, it is still difficult for outdoor garment industry to be completely free from PFC pollution.

Alternatives need three years.

Environmental experts suggest that consumers first consider what the purpose of buying outdoor clothing is, whether to explore Antarctica or to take a walk in autumn. Kill chickens and kill cattle knife. Without bad weather, you don't need to have Gore - Tex.

You know, the less function a garment has, the less harmful substance it will be.

Rainproof clothing is usually made of waterproof coating on the outer surface, with a film attached to the inside.

Two layers of protection are usually inseparable from the help of "fluorine".

Of course, some manufacturers now give up the Gore - Tex film and choose polyester or polyurethane as the membrane.

Some alternatives to fluorinated coatings have also surfaced: paraffin, dendritic compounds (such as Bionic Finish Eco), silicone...

Some technologies have been adopted by some supermarkets and franchised stores. Some technologies are still in the experimental stage and are expected to meet with consumers in the near future.

The test shows that the protection effect of fluorine free substitute is equivalent to that of fluorine. The products containing PFC will be slightly better against oil and antifouling. On the other hand, the wear resistance of some garments made of fluorine free alternatives is better than that of those containing PFC.

However, enterprises that use substitutes also need to prove that their products are harmless to environment and health.

At present, the EU has not banned PFC in textile production.

Many environmental experts call for the ban as soon as possible and replace PFC with other substances.

The effect of the ban is expected to be very obvious. Since 2008, the European Union has banned the harmful substances perfluorooctane sulfonate PFOS.

In addition, the famous outdoor brands such as wolf claw have issued a statement that they intend to abandon the use of PFOA before 2015.

Experts remind that because laundry may cause harmful substances such as PFC to enter the water and pollute the environment, consumers who have purchased outdoor clothing can not wear them for the time being, and consumers who want to buy outdoor clothing. Perhaps in 2015, environmentally friendly outdoor clothing can really meet consumers on schedule.