20/ 100
F
OverallF0/100
lululemon Mile Maker Shorts | Men's Ripstop Lined Short 6" | Size L

Lululemon · Waterproof Sports Gear

lululemon Mile Maker Shorts | Men's Ripstop Lined Short 6" | Size L

F · High PFAS

Likely water-repellent coating treated; Lululemon discloses no PFAS stance.

Verdict: SkipNylon ripstop with water-repellent coating treatment likely contains PFAS; no major textile hazards reported for Lululemon shorts, but water-repellent coating chemical transparency is absent.

Ripstop shorts with water-resistant finish typical for performance apparel. Lululemon provides no public PFAS disclosure or commitments on this product.

The safe swap

Patagonia Men's 10" Quandary Shorts

Patagonia

Patagonia Men's 10" Quandary Shorts

100/100 safety

A

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

Material

Nylon ripstop with water-repellent coating (durable water-resistant) treatment

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment

water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.

Hurts the grade

Category baseline

clothing is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

This short is nylon ripstop (a tight-weave synthetic fabric resistant to tearing) with a water-repellent coating finish applied to the outer layer. water-repellent coating treatments historically used PFOA and PFOS perfluorinated compounds, though some manufacturers have shifted to shorter-chain alternatives or fluorine-free options. Lululemon does not publicly disclose which water-repellent coating chemistry it uses, so the PFAS profile of this specific product is unknown. The nylon itself poses minimal acute risk if not degraded, but the water-repellent coating is the chemical question mark.

The brand's record and disclosure

Lululemon does not maintain a public PFAS policy, does not publish restricted substance lists (RSLs) beyond general compliance claims, and has not committed to fluorine-free water-repellent coating alternatives. The company has faced criticism for opaque chemical sourcing across its technical apparel line. No major product recalls for formaldehyde, azo dyes, or heavy metals in colorants have been established for Lululemon shorts. The brand's silence on water-repellent coating chemistry is the primary transparency gap.

How it compares in its category

Technical athletic shorts with water-repellent coating finishes are standard in this price tier (Lululemon, Nike, Arc'teryx all use similar nylon + water-resistant coatings). Competitors including Patagonia and The North Face have committed to phasing out long-chain PFAS or using fluorine-free alternatives, while Lululemon has made no public commitment. Non-water-repellent coating nylon alternatives exist (plain ripstop) but sacrifice water resistance, a function buyers expect. This product sits mid-market on transparency.

If you buy it

Wash in cool water (PFAS can shed during laundering, especially hot water) and air-dry to limit heat exposure. Do not machine-dry at high temperatures, as heat accelerates coating breakdown and potential chemical release. Replace when the water-repellent coating noticeably degrades (water no longer beads on fabric surface), typically 2-3 years of regular use. If concerned about PFAS exposure, contact Lululemon directly requesting water-repellent coating composition; silence on this question from the brand is a signal to seek alternatives.

Beyond PFAS: other things we checked

Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”

Likely

Durable water-resistant (water-repellent coating) coating chemistry

Nylon ripstop with water-repellent coating finish almost certainly uses fluorinated compounds for water beading and stain resistance. Lululemon does not disclose whether these are legacy PFOA/PFOS, short-chain PFAS, or fluorine-free alternatives. PFAS migration during washing and wear is documented for untreated technical fabrics, though risk magnitude depends on unknown coating type.

None known

Formaldehyde resins in dyes or finishes

No recalls or documented formaldehyde-releaser issues have been reported for Lululemon shorts. Nylon ripstop typically requires minimal resin curing. This remains a theoretical textile category risk but is not established for this brand or product line.

None known

Azo dyes and heavy metals in colorants

No product recalls or test failures for prohibited azo dyes or cadmium/lead in pigments have been documented for Lululemon apparel. The brand likely complies with California Prop 65 and CPSIA color standards, but public third-party testing data is absent.

Possible

Nylon degradation and microfiber shedding

All synthetic athletic shorts shed microfibers during washing. Nylon ripstop is more durable than standard nylon, reducing shed rates compared to smooth knits. This is a category-wide exposure, not brand-specific; washing in cold water and air-drying minimizes shedding.

Reported

water-repellent coating breakdown over time

Water-resistant coatings degrade with use and washing, exposing the underlying nylon and releasing shed coating particles. Lululemon shorts typically maintain water-repellent coating for 2-3 years of regular use before noticeable loss of beading. No toxicological hazard has been documented from aged water-repellent coating shedding, but chemical composition unknowns limit full assessment.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 45% confidence. It is not a lab result.

No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.

The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.

Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.

Safer alternatives in Waterproof Sports Gear

Patagonia Men's 10" Quandary Shorts

Patagonia

Men's 10" Quandary Shorts

nylon/polyester blend with water-repellent coating treatment

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS1 flag

Lower concern. Patagonia uses PFC-free water-repellent coating; verify MADE SAFE label on tag.

MADE SAFE (PFAS-free DWR verified on some styles)

Lab test found no PFAS

Reebok Men's Athlete Speed Shorts

Reebok

Men's Athlete Speed Shorts

Polyester mesh and nylon blend, standard athletic construction

D
F
PFASAll
D · Elevated3 flags

Lower concern. Standard athletic shorts without water-resistant coating.

Risky category by default

Patagonia Men's Home Waters Hybrid Shorts

Patagonia

Men's Home Waters Hybrid Shorts

Polyester blend with PFAS-free water-repellent coating finish

D
F
PFASAll
D · Elevated2 flags

Lower concern. Patagonia phased out PFAS-based water-repellent coating; verify current product line batch.

Bluesign

Waterproof or stain-proof treatment

More waterproof sports gear 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.