Decoding ‘Non-Toxic’: A Scientific Comparison of PFAS, Flame Retardant, and VOC Testing

The growing demand for sustainable camping gear has led manufacturers to make bold claims like “non-toxic” and “chemical-free”.

But when you see labels like “PFAS-free,” “flame retardant-free,” or “VOC-free,” what do they really mean?

It turns out, it’s more complicated than it sounds.

Validating these claims requires rigorous—and fundamentally different—testing protocols.

Understanding Chemicals and Why They Matter

PFAS (the “Forever Chemicals”)

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that are resistant to heat, oil, and water.

PFAS are also known as “forever chemicals” because they persist in the environment and can accumulate in the human body.

They are often used in outdoor gear to provide stain resistance and water repellency.

Flame Retardants

Flame retardants are chemicals added to camping gear, like tents, to make them less flammable.

However, some flame retardants have been linked to health problems, leading to a growing demand for flame retardant-free products.

VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds)

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are chemicals that evaporate at room temperature and can contribute to air pollution.

Think of the “new car smell” – that’s VOCs.

They are often found in outdoor gear, such as tents and sleeping bags, through the use of adhesives, coatings, and dyes.

The Problem with “Chemical-Free” Claims

The challenge is that testing for these chemicals is tricky. Here’s why:

PFAS-Free Claims

To earn a PFAS-free certification, products must undergo rigorous testing to ensure they contain no detectable levels of these chemicals.

To earn PFAS-free status, products must pass two hurdles:

1. Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) Screening: This test measures the total amount of fluorine in a product. If the level is below a certain threshold, the product is considered PFAS-free.
2. Targeted Compound Analysis: This test specifically looks for individual PFAS compounds, such as PFOA and PFOS. If these compounds are detected, the product fails the certification.

PFAS Testing Methods Comparison

PFAS-Free claims are hard to verify because:

• Since there are 12,000+ of different PFAS, no single test can find them all.
• PFAS testing costs vary widely. Certified labs typically charge $300–$600 per sample for EPA-recommended methods like 533 and 537.1, while advanced screening methods (e.g., LC-MS/MS) can cost up to $2,000+ depending on the complexity and scope of the analysis
• PFAS testing using advanced methods like LC-MS/MS or TOF screening generally takes 2–4 weeks, depending on lab capacity and method complexity.
• PFAS testing with TOF screening alone can have up to 25% false negative rate.
• Recycled materials like polyester and vinyl can sometimes reintroduce PFAS chemicals.
• A 2024 Federal ruling in California deemed TOF screening alone insufficient for PFAS-free verification.
• TCA screening focuses on 40–70 known PFAS variants, and excludes newer/unidentified compounds.

Flame Retardant-Free Claims

To validate flame retardant-free claims, manufacturers typically use a combination of testing methods, including:

1. Chemical Analysis: This involves testing the product for the presence of known flame retardants.
2. Physical Testing: This involves subjecting the product to a flame test to see how it reacts.

Flame Retardant-Free claims are hard to verify because:

• Testing methods vary, and some “FR-free” products might still contain unwanted chemicals.
• For example, a significant percentage of “FR-free” tents still contain triphenyl phosphate (TPP) flame retardants
• Costs for flame retardant testing range from $300 to $1,200, depending on the method used (e.g., XRF screening is less expensive than GC-MS analysis).
• Flame retardant testing using methods like GC-MS or CPAI-84 compliance typically takes around 1–3 weeks.
• False negatives in flame retardant testing can reach up to 30–40% because of issues in detecting phosphorus-based FRs.

VOC-Free Claims

To earn a VOC-free certification, products must undergo rigorous testing to ensure they emit low levels of VOCs.

This typically involves placing the product in a chamber and measuring the amount of VOCs it releases over time.

VOC-free claims are hard to verify because:

• Even natural materials release VOCs, so it’s hard to get to zero.
• The “free” claim can be misleading if there are still trace amounts. VOC testing has 20% false negative rate.
• VOC-free tents often omit isocyanate emissions from polyurethane coatings
• FTC’s “Trace Amounts” guidance prohibits “free” claims if VOCs exceed trace levels.
• VOC emissions testing typically costs between $200 and $300 per sample, but comprehensive indoor air quality tests that include VOCs can cost up to $800 or more.

How to Spot Trustworthy “Non-Toxic” Claims

Here’s what to look for when shopping for outdoor gear:

Look for Brands That Are Transparent:

• Do they provide detailed information about the chemicals they use (or don’t use)?
• Do they work with independent labs to verify their claims?

Third-Party Certifications:

• Look for certifications like bluesign®, which means the product has been tested for harmful chemicals.
• Brands should combine TOF screening with LC-MS/MS for PFAS
• Brands like NEMO partners with bluesign® for supply chain audits

Detailed Chemical Disclosures:

• Just like food labels, some brands are starting to provide detailed chemical information.
• REI provides chemical disclosure labels on some of their branded products

Don’t Just Trust “Free” Labels:

• Ask questions and do your research.
• Understand that “non toxic” is a spectrum, and very few products are completely free of all chemicals.

The Path to Trustworthy Claims

Manufacturers must adopt:

• Multi-Method Testing: Combine TOF screening with LC-MS/MS for PFAS
• Time-Weighted Averages: 30-day VOC emission profiles instead of snapshots
• Open Data Sharing: Publish full chemical inventories like Fjällräven’s Eco-Shell database1

While current protocols represent progress, true non-toxic validation requires standardized methods across 146 chemical classes—a challenge the outdoor industry is only beginning to address.

Conclusion

The “non-toxic” label is a complex one, and there is no one-size-fits-all definition.

However, the testing protocols described in this article provide a scientific basis for evaluating the claims of manufacturers.

By understanding these protocols, consumers can make informed decisions about the products they choose.

Related Posts:

• The Hidden Dangers of Toxic Camping Tents
• The Importance of Non-Toxic Sleeping Bags
• The Best Waterproof Tents Made Without Harmful Flame Retardants
• The Best Non Toxic Tents for Healthier Camping

Additional Resources:

• PFAS-Free Certification
• Flame Retardant-Free Certification
• VOC-Free Certification