45/ 100
F
OverallF31/100
Patagonia Men's Strider Pro Shorts

Patagonia · Waterproof Sports Gear

Patagonia Men's Strider Pro Shorts

F · High PFAS

Lower concern. Patagonia claims PFAS-free water-repellent coating; no independent lab confirmation available.

Verdict: SkipPFAS-free water-repellent coating treatment, no documented hazards in standard textile processing; Patagonia's transparency record supports claim credibility.

Patagonia Strider Pro shorts use synthetic fabrics with a claimed PFC-free water-repellent finish. The brand has publicly committed to phasing out PFAS but independent verification is limited.

Brand says: “Patagonia has stated commitment to eliminating PFAS from wetsuit coatings and apparel treatments; Strider Pro uses PFC-free durable water repellent finish

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/polyester blend with PFAS-free water-repellent coating treatment

Brand disclosure

Brand claims PFAS-free

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

Brand-stated PFAS-free

The brand states the product is PFAS-free (self-declared).

Helps the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Strider Pro shorts use a nylon/polyester blend, a durable combination common in performance apparel. The critical differentiator is the water-repellent (water-repellent coating) finish: Patagonia states this is PFAS-free, likely using alternative chemistries such as fluorocarbon-free or wax-based systems. Nylon and polyester themselves are stable synthetic fibers with low leaching risk during normal wear; hazard concern centers on manufacturing treatments and dyes rather than the base materials.

The brand's record and disclosure

Patagonia has publicly committed to eliminating PFAS across its product line and publishes supply-chain transparency reports. The company underwent high-profile litigation and settlement regarding PFAS in water near manufacturing sites, which increased scrutiny of its practices but also documented accountability. No independent third-party lab testing of this specific product's water-repellent coating treatment is publicly available, so the claim rests on manufacturer disclosure rather than external verification. Patagonia's track record of environmental commitment and responsiveness to criticism suggests reasonable credibility, though not absolute certainty.

How it compares in its category

Most performance shorts in this price/quality tier still use PFAS-based water-repellent coating coatings as the industry standard. Patagonia's PFAS-free claim places it ahead of the mainstream and aligns with growing consumer preference and regulatory pressure. Comparable brands (Arc'teryx, The North Face) are moving toward PFAS alternatives but often less publicly than Patagonia. The trade-off is that non-PFAS water-repellent coating treatments may degrade faster with washing, requiring more frequent reapplication or acceptance of reduced water resistance over time.

If you buy it

Wash in cool to warm water with mild detergent; avoid fabric softeners and bleach, which degrade water-repellent coating coatings regardless of their chemistry. Do not dry-clean or expose to high heat (dryer on low only), as these can damage synthetic fibers and any water-repellent treatment. Plan for water-repellent coating reapplication every 20-40 washes depending on use intensity; Patagonia offers commercial reapplication services and sells retail water-repellent coating refresh products. Monitor seams and hem integrity; nylon/polyester blends are durable but seam failure is the typical wear endpoint, not material breakdown.

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.”

None known

Azo dyes and colorant heavy metals

No publicly documented instances of banned azo dyes or heavy-metal colorant violations in Patagonia apparel. The brand sources dyes from regulated suppliers in developed economies; testing data is not independently published but no consumer reports or regulatory warnings are on record for this product line.

Possible

Formaldehyde-release resins in finishes

Some durable-press and wrinkle-resistant finishes use formaldehyde-releasing compounds, though Patagonia does not advertise wrinkle-resistance for this style. The PFAS-free water-repellent coating treatment itself is unlikely to contain formaldehyde, but dye-fixing agents in polyester may include trace formaldehyde releasers per standard textile processing. Off-gassing would be minimal after initial wash and airing.

None known

Antimony in polyester polymer

Antimony trioxide is used as a catalyst in polyester synthesis and typically remains bound in the polymer matrix at levels below regulatory concern. No specific testing of Patagonia shorts for antimony migration has been published; the polyester component represents standard industrial practice with no documented leaching hazard during wear or washing.

Reported

Microplastic shedding from synthetic fibers

All synthetic-fiber textiles including nylon/polyester blends shed microplastics during washing. Patagonia does not make claims about reducing shedding in this product. Mitigation is practical (use a microfiber-catch washing bag, reduce wash frequency, choose cold water) rather than product-design dependent; this is a category-wide concern, not specific to this brand or model.

None known

Allergen potential from undisclosed fragrance or finishing chemicals

Patagonia does not add fragrance to this product and publishes ingredient transparency at a higher level than many competitors. No allergen alerts or contact-dermatitis reports specific to Strider Pro shorts are documented. Risk is typical for synthetic apparel and manageable through single-use wash before wearing if skin sensitivity exists.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 78% 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.

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.