A guide to water repellency, waterproofing, film laminates and testing a fluorine-free finish.
PFAS-free DWR is a durable water repellent finish designed to reduce how readily the face of a fabric wets while meeting a specified PFAS requirement. It can be part of a jacket, a reusable cover or another technical textile. Water repellency, resistance to water penetration, oil repellency and breathability describe different properties. A buyer looking for a replacement finish can save time by defining which ones matter to the finished product.
Nanize develops PFAS-free polysilazane coatings and lists technical fabrics and membranes among its development opportunities. Its public results include work on coated thermoplastic polyurethane, or TPU, film. That provides one route for textile converters to discuss an exposed polymer layer in a laminate. Direct application to woven, knitted or nonwoven fabric raises a different development question because the coating must work with fibers, pores, movement and care requirements. [1] [2]
What a Durable Water Repellent Finish Does
DWR stands for durable water repellent. The finish is commonly discussed as a treatment for the outside of a fabric. It changes how easily water wets that surface and can encourage water to bead or roll away under appropriate conditions. A customer may see the difference when a fabric face takes longer to wet through on the outside. How long the effect lasts depends on the product, finish and exposure.
Waterproofing concerns the movement of water through the finished material. A laminate may use a continuous film or membrane to resist penetration while the outer face has a water-repellent treatment. Seams, joins and openings can affect the performance of the finished article. A fabric may show strong water beading while the assembled product still needs separate evidence for the type of water exposure it is designed to handle. [3] [4]
Air permeability and water-vapor resistance also describe different behavior. Air permeability concerns how much air passes through a material under test conditions. Water-vapor resistance concerns the movement of moisture vapor through a material or assembly. A fabric that feels suitable for a reusable cover might be uncomfortable in a garment with a different use. Choose the measurement that reflects the specification for the product. [5]
Oil repellency is another separate property. A finish selected to change the way water wets a surface may behave differently when it encounters oils or other liquids. Technical workwear, upholstery and covers can face very different contamination. If oils are relevant, add a test for the oils and conditions involved. A water spray rating answers a different question from an oil-repellency result. [6] [7]
PFAS Free and Fluorine Free Claims in Textiles
PFAS is a broad family of substances. Buyers may see terms such as PFAS-free DWR, fluorine-free water repellent or non-fluorinated finish when comparing treatments. A meaningful specification identifies the scope of the claim. It could describe the treatment supplied to a mill, a coated fabric or a finished article that includes membranes, adhesives, prints and hardware. Each scope requires different information from the supply chain. [8] [7]
Ask whether a declaration concerns intentionally added chemistry, analytical results or both. If an analysis is used, record the method, the material tested and the reporting limit. A purchaser may need records for more than the outer fabric where the whole article is in scope. A supplier can help trace the relevant formulation, lot and construction so the declaration can be checked against the actual product.
California’s AB 1817 is one example of why this detail matters. Its requirements apply to covered textile articles beginning January 1, 2025, and its definition of regulated PFAS includes intentionally added substances with a functional or technical effect and a total-organic-fluorine threshold. The statutory threshold is 100 parts per million beginning in 2025 and 50 parts per million beginning January 1, 2027. The law also has product scope provisions and exceptions. A brand should verify which provisions apply to its product and sales market. [9] [10]
Industry guidance can help buyers understand the available categories. RISE, a Swedish research institute, has published a textile supply-chain substitution resource that includes a list of industrial treatments. That kind of resource helps a mill identify alternatives and compare them for the intended textile. A commercial material decision still needs data for the fiber, finish, production process and use the brand has specified. [7]
How Nanize Could Fit a Textile Development Project
Nanize uses polysilazane chemistry to develop functional surfaces. Suitable formulations can cure into a durable, ceramic-like layer on compatible materials. The company describes marker-removal work on treated TPU films and lists textile-related development interests. A published result for a polymer film provides a starting point for exploring a film-faced textile. The finished laminate needs its own assessment of cleanability, flexing and adhesion. [2] [1]
Consider a reusable cover made from a fabric laminated to an exposed polymer layer. The converter could compare the current laminate with a candidate that uses a coated film. Tests could look at how easily the surface wipes clean, whether the finish changes at folds and whether the layers remain bonded after repeated handling. These outcomes matter to the customer that stores, transports and cleans the cover.
A film-faced upholstery panel provides a different example. The surface may experience repeated rubbing, contact with cleaning products and light exposure. A candidate topcoat can be evaluated for appearance and stain release on the same laminate construction. The buyer can also compare feel and flexibility because those characteristics influence how a finished panel looks and performs after installation.
Direct fabric finishing would require a separate development program. A textile mill could test a formulation on representative swatches and examine how it distributes across the material. It would need evidence on feel, drape, appearance and changes after laundering. A finish that looks even on a flat film may interact differently with yarns and fabric texture. Fabric structure, fiber chemistry and intended care all belong in the application brief.
Choosing Between a Fabric Finish and a Coated Film
Start with where the surface function belongs. In a garment that needs a soft face and regular washing, the fabric itself may be the relevant surface. A cover designed for wipe-down maintenance may be better suited to an exposed film. A laminate can have more than one functional layer. Define which layer needs to change and which layers already do their jobs well.
If the project involves a membrane, preserve its intended function in the evaluation. A membrane can affect water penetration and vapor movement. A change elsewhere in the stack can also change what the user experiences, especially if an adhesive or coating alters the way the layers interact. A trial on the full assembly gives the brand a better comparison than a result on the outer layer alone.
A converter can compare the two routes with the brand’s use case in mind. A coated film can offer a continuous surface that is easier to inspect for uniformity. A direct finish may preserve a textile appearance and feel if the formulation and process fit the fabric. Each route involves a different manufacturing step, and the selection should reflect the performance the finished product needs.
Consider the routes for maintenance and repair. A garment may be laundered according to a care label. A reusable cover may be wiped repeatedly and folded between uses. A panel may be cleaned in place. If the product will be repaired or replaced in sections, include the behavior at seams and edges. Those details can influence whether a new surface delivers value over the life of the article.
Which Textile Tests Answer Which Questions
Surface wetting and water penetration
AATCC TM22 evaluates water repellency using a spray test and addresses the wetting of the fabric surface. ISO 811 describes a hydrostatic pressure method for resistance to water penetration. The tests can complement each other when a brand needs evidence for both the behavior of the face fabric and the resistance of a laminate or fabric to water passing through it. Use the results for the property each method evaluates. [3] [4]
Oil and stain behavior
AATCC TM118 addresses oil repellency through hydrocarbon resistance. A brand with a particular staining problem can add an evaluation using the relevant contaminant and cleaning routine. A high reading for one liquid is useful for that test. A trial intended to support a stain-release claim can also inspect whether residue or visible discoloration remains after cleaning. [6]
Abrasion and laundering
ASTM D4966 describes Martindale abrasion testing for textiles. A mill can choose the method appropriate to the construction and combine it with care cycles that reflect the product. Retest surface wetting, appearance or stain removal after the exposure. The information a brand needs is whether the property it plans to claim persists through the cleaning and contact the product will see. [11]
Comfort and the complete assembly
If the article is clothing, include the properties that affect the user. ISO 11092 specifies methods for thermal and water-vapor resistance under steady-state conditions for materials including fabrics, films and multilayer assemblies. A finished garment can also be evaluated for fit, handling and perceived feel. A materials result provides context for how the assembled product behaves in its intended use. [5]
How to Build a Representative Mill Trial
Pick a construction the brand can describe precisely. Record the fiber or film grade, any dye or print, existing treatments and how the sample is prepared. For a laminate, identify the exposed layer and other layers that affect the finished product. Use an incumbent with the same construction where possible so the team can isolate the effect of the new finish on the textile.
Test performance at the points that matter to the buyer. A cover can be evaluated before and after folding, washing or wiping. An outerwear fabric can be assessed after the care cycles the brand intends to specify. An upholstery supplier can examine appearance and wear in the areas of expected contact. Decide what the first pass must show and what data the team will need before moving to a larger run.
A production pilot adds the question of whether the finish can be applied consistently. A film converter can inspect along the roll and across the width. A mill can compare pieces from different positions in a batch. Retain representative examples, record the process conditions and compare a set of samples after the expected storage and handling. This gives the buyer data for the actual material it plans to order.
Review cure conditions on the substrate that will see them. Nanize reports rapid curing on selected tested substrates. A textile or film project needs evidence for its own heat limits, finish appearance and compatibility with lamination or later manufacturing. A trial can monitor the material temperature and identify which parts of the process determine throughput. [2]
Include a step where the buyer and mill review the results together. A fabric can satisfy its wetting target while needing a change in hand or appearance. A coated laminate can clean easily while its edge behavior requires further work. The team can use the evaluation to decide which adjustment has the greatest value and which properties should be preserved during another round of development.
Choosing Use Cases for an Early Textile Pilot
A workwear manufacturer may want a panel that is easier to wipe clean in a frequently handled area. A first project can focus on the existing material in that area and compare how the garment looks after cleaning and movement. If the manufacturer plans to use the finish throughout a garment, the trial can extend to places that fold, stretch or rub differently. The smaller project provides evidence for what should be measured next.
A reusable cover can have a simpler functional brief. Its owner may want residue to lift with the current cleaning method while the cover remains easy to fold and store. A film-faced sample lets the converter examine both the exposed finish and the bond between layers. The supplier can inspect folded areas and edges after handling. Those observations help it decide whether to test a larger piece made with the same construction.
An upholstery supplier may prioritize consistent appearance over a wide area. The trial can compare visible marks on light and dark colors, changes after cleaning and the feel of the surface after repeated contact. A product intended for a particular maintenance program can be tested using the relevant cleaners. This gives the buyer a basis for choosing a finish suited to its customers’ care routines.
In each case, write down which properties are essential before selecting a candidate. One cover may need a low level of surface wetting and good flexibility. Another may need resistance to a particular stain and compatibility with a cleaning product. An early trial works best when the buyer can describe why the existing construction is being reconsidered and what a better result would allow it to offer.
The Commercial Case for a Better Textile Surface
The most useful savings are measured in the way the customer buys or maintains the product. An operator may care about time spent wiping covers. A brand may care about warranty claims tied to appearance or care. A mill may care about accepted meters per roll and whether the new finish fits existing equipment. Choose the outcome that motivated the project and measure the other relevant changes alongside it.
For an illustrative fleet of reusable covers, imagine a comparison that showed a 30-second reduction in cleaning time on each of 120 covers after a use cycle. That would represent one hour of cleaning time across the fleet for that cycle. A buyer would still check that the finish remained acceptable through the expected service life and compare the value with coating and replacement cost.
A buyer with several products can choose one for the first trial. A clear starting point might be a film-faced cover with a known cleaning problem and a simple way to compare candidate and reference. A successful result can guide discussions about other constructions. Each new application still needs evidence for the particular textile, layer and conditions it will encounter.
When a trial advances, ask who will supply the coated material and how the lot will be tracked. A brand, mill, laminator and coater may each control a different part of the construction. Their records can establish which lots were evaluated and who reviews material changes. That clarity supports both performance claims and material declarations after qualification.
Making a Textile Claim That Buyers Can Interpret
Use language that identifies the property and the material. A water-repellent face fabric, a laminate that resists water penetration and an easy-clean cover describe different products. A claim can say which layer was treated, which condition was evaluated and what care the brand expects. Keeping the scope visible helps a purchaser compare products that serve the same purpose.
Maintain a record of samples after the expected care cycles. A customer may want to know how the finish behaves after use, especially when its purchase decision depends on the term durable. A dated record can identify the test method, the reference and what changed after laundering, abrasion or cleaning. The same record can support a later comparison if a supplier changes a fiber, adhesive or finish.
Finally, make sure a declaration travels with the specific material grade. A documented construction helps buyers link the tested piece to the rolls they receive. Retain a physical sample from the accepted run so the mill can compare future lots against it.
The Nanize Team and Textile Development Partners
Dr. Kingsley Iwu, CTO and co-founder, leads the technical work on Nanize formulations and curing. Chief Commercial Officer Jerry Stokes is a point of contact for mills, converters and brands evaluating an application. CEO David Hogg brings industrial operating experience, and CFO and co-founder Håvard Lillebo brings the finance perspective on development and commercialization. A joint trial can give the team and its partners evidence about the specific textile construction. [12] [2]
Frequently Asked Questions About PFAS Free DWR
Is a DWR finish waterproof
DWR addresses wetting of the outside of a material. Resistance to water penetration is a separate property. A garment or cover may use a membrane, coating or other construction to provide water resistance and may require evaluation of seams and openings. Ask what the supplier tested and whether the result covers the complete article. [3] [4]
Does PFAS free DWR repel oil
That depends on the formulation and the oil. Water repellency and oil repellency are measured separately. If the product encounters oil in service, use a test appropriate to that exposure and repeat it after the care or wear cycles the product will see. [6] [7]
Can polysilazane be applied directly to fabric
Direct fabric finishing is a development route that calls for substrate-specific testing. Nanize’s published work includes treated TPU film, which can inform discussions about film-faced constructions. A fabric project needs evidence about coverage, movement, appearance, laundering and the finished product’s other properties. [2] [1]
How can a textile mill show that repellency is durable
Compare initial performance with results after relevant laundering, abrasion and use. Use a documented method and a reference material. The test conditions should reflect the care instructions and service environment the brand intends to describe. Ask how the finish looks and feels after exposure as well as how it performs in the selected test.
What information should a brand give a coating supplier
Provide the fiber or film, the current construction and finish, the layer to be treated and the properties that must be maintained. Include the intended care cycle and material declaration requirements. A representative swatch and a clear description of the performance target help the partners decide which evaluation makes sense.
Discuss a Technical Textile Project With Nanize
Nanize welcomes textile mills, laminators, film converters, brands, research partners, investors and relevant event organizers. Contact Jerry Stokes at js@nanize.com with the material, the surface function and the conditions the finished product will face. A short application brief can help identify whether a film or fabric route is a useful place to start. [13] [12]
Sources
1. Nanize development priorities
2. Nanize coating technology and test results
3. AATCC TM22 spray test for water repellency
4. ISO 811 hydrostatic pressure method for water penetration
5. ISO 11092 for thermal and water-vapor resistance
6. AATCC summary of textile oil and water repellency methods
7. RISE PFAS substitution guide for textile supply chains
8. OECD PFAS terminology and structural definitions
9. California Health and Safety Code section 108970
10. California DTSC legislative mandates report on AB 1817
11. ASTM D4966 Martindale abrasion test for textiles