40/ 100
F
OverallF22/100
RTIC Ultra-Dry Duffle Pack

RTIC · Waterproof Outdoor Luggage

RTIC Ultra-Dry Duffle Pack

F · High PFAS

water-repellent coating-coated pack; PFAS risk unclear. Verify with brand.

Verdict: Skipwater-repellent coating likely contains PFAS; nylon/polyester base poses microplastic shedding risk if abraded. Brand silent on chemistry. Verify water-repellent coating-free option or PFAS disclosure before purchase.

RTIC does not publicly disclose PFAS content or coating chemistry for this duffle pack. Water-resistant outdoor gear often uses fluorochemical water-repellent coating treatments that may contain PFAS.

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

Material

Nylon or polyester fabric with water-repellent coating waterproof coating

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

other 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

The RTIC Ultra-Dry Duffle Pack uses nylon or polyester fabric treated with a water-repellent coating (water-repellent coating) coating to shed moisture. water-repellent coating finishes historically relied on fluorinated compounds (PFAS) to achieve their water-shedding performance, though some newer formulations claim PFAS-free alternatives. The base fabric itself is prone to microplastic shedding through friction and UV exposure, especially in high-wear areas like straps and bottom seams. Without transparent material disclosure from RTIC, the exact composition of the water-repellent coating treatment cannot be verified from public sources.

The brand's record and disclosure

RTIC has not made public commitments to PFAS-free manufacturing or published detailed material safety documentation for their gear lines. The brand maintains a largely silent stance on chemical inputs and has not pursued third-party certifications like Bluesign or GRS that would signal stricter control over synthetic coatings. No major safety recalls or contamination incidents appear in public records for RTIC packs, but absence of disclosure does not indicate absence of hazard. Direct contact with the brand to confirm water-repellent coating chemistry is the only reliable path to verification.

How it compares in its category

Waterproof duffle packs in this price and brand segment typically rely on water-repellent coating-coated synthetics similar to the RTIC model. High-end alternatives (e.g., Patagonia, Arc'teryx) often disclose PFAS status or use certified PFAS-free coatings, though at higher cost. Budget-tier and mid-market options from RTIC, REI Co-op, and others rarely provide coating transparency, making water-repellent coating composition a widespread blind spot across the category. If PFAS avoidance is a priority, packs with explicit PFAS-free labeling or natural waterproofing (waxed canvas, oil-treated) are the safer choice.

If you buy it

Minimize microplastic release by avoiding prolonged abrasion against rough surfaces and hand-washing rather than machine washing if possible. Store in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight to slow UV-driven fabric degradation. Do not heat-set or tumble dry, as high temperatures can accelerate synthetic fiber breakdown. Before purchase, contact RTIC customer service directly asking whether the water-repellent coating is PFAS-free and request a material safety data sheet; silence or vague answers suggest the product contains fluorinated compounds.

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.”

Possible

water-repellent coating composition (PFAS risk)

Waterproof duffle packs commonly use fluorinated water-repellent coating finishes. RTIC has not disclosed whether their coating is PFAS-based or PFAS-free, placing this product in the presumed-at-risk category pending brand verification.

Reported

Microplastic shedding from synthetic fabric

Nylon and polyester textiles release microplastics through friction, abrasion, and UV degradation. Duffle packs experience high mechanical stress on straps and seams, accelerating fiber release over the product lifespan.

None known

Formaldehyde or azo dyes in fabric processing

No specific contamination or recall data exists for RTIC packs. Standard nylon and polyester can carry trace formaldehyde resins or azo dyes from manufacturing; RTIC does not publish processing standards that would rule this out.

Possible

Coating degradation and leaching into use environment

water-repellent coating coatings degrade with age, washing, and sun exposure, potentially releasing coating particles or residues into stored contents or water runoff. No testing data is publicly available for this specific product.

None known

Antimony in polyester

If the pack uses polyester as primary fabric, antimony trioxide may be present as a catalyst from polyester production. Levels in finished textiles are typically low and non-bioavailable, but RTIC does not disclose antimony status or testing.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 35% 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.

More waterproof outdoor luggage 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.