SKIING WITH A SMILE
The Rise and Fall of Fluorinated Ski Waxes
PART III OF IV
PFOA/C8 – The Price of Speed
In the first part of our story, we followed the revolutionary rise of fluorinated ski waxes.
In the second part, we asked a few rather uncomfortable questions.
Did ever-increasing concentrations of fluorinated additives really improve glide?
Was it truly necessary to apply so many different layers of wax?
And were some of the most expensive products primarily very profitable commercial items?
Now we come to an issue far more serious than the price of a packet of fluorinated powder.
Human health and environmental protection.
And once again, to our original theory that ski wax manufacturers might have contributed, at least partly, to the downfall of fluorinated technology.
3. Perfluorooctanoic Acid – PFOA/C8
It is hardly a secret that perfluorooctanoic acid, commonly known as PFOA or C8, is a highly problematic chemical.
The designation C8 refers to the eight carbon atoms in its molecule.
PFOA belongs to the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS.
It is extremely persistent in the environment, and exposure to this substance has been associated with a number of serious health risks.
Or, to put it a little less scientifically:
It is such nasty stuff that the European Union decided to impose major restrictions on it.
Significant European restrictions on PFOA, its salts and related compounds began applying on 4 July 2020.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/784 brought these substances under the European regulatory framework for persistent organic pollutants.
Certain exemptions and transitional provisions existed, of course.
But the basic message was unmistakable.
This chemistry could no longer be treated as an ordinary, unproblematic component of industrial production.
Was PFOA the Basis of Every Fluorinated Ski Wax?
An important clarification is necessary here.
PFOA was not the universal main ingredient of all fluorinated ski waxes.
However, it was associated with certain fluorinated products as an unwanted impurity or as a substance that could be formed from particular fluorinated precursors.
Technologies based on long fluorinated chains of the C8 type were particularly problematic.
The European Union therefore did not ban all fluorinated ski waxes without distinction in 2020.
It imposed major restrictions on PFOA and related substances.
For part of the fluorinated ski wax market, this was nevertheless a significant development.
And now things become interesting.
When Chemical Risks Meet a Hot Waxing Iron
Fluorinated substances were used in many different industries.
Racing ski preparation, however, had one particularly unpleasant characteristic.
Waxes were often applied at elevated temperatures, frequently in relatively small waxing rooms.
This was followed by scraping off excess wax, brushing and further mechanical preparation of the ski base.
These activities could generate vapours, aerosols and fine particles containing various fluorinated compounds.
And here we have concrete scientific evidence.
Studies of professional ski wax technicians have documented substantial occupational exposure to PFAS, including PFOA.
A study published in 2010, for example, reported a median PFOA concentration in the blood of the investigated technicians approximately 25 times higher than background levels in the general population.
Other investigations confirmed the presence of fluorinated substances and aerosols in professional ski waxing environments.
Of course, this does not mean that every vapour generated during hot waxing consisted of PFOA.
Nor does it mean that every technician who worked with fluorinated waxes necessarily developed a health condition.
But it does demonstrate that occupational exposure was real and measurable.
And that is deeply troubling.
The people preparing our fastest skis may have been paying for that speed with their own health.
Hardly a cheerful marketing story about gaining a few extra seconds on the racecourse.
And What Was Left Behind in the Snow?
Beyond the working environment, there was another problem.
Environmental contamination.
Wax layers gradually wear away through mechanical contact with the snow.
Some of the material is therefore released into the surrounding snow and may subsequently reach the wider environment.
In the case of persistent fluorinated chemicals, this raises serious concerns.
After all, snow eventually melts.
And the water continues into soil, streams and rivers.
Racing skis should not leave a chemical legacy in the mountains long after the athletes have gone home.
And remember our previous discussion about the durability of expensive fluorinated topcoats.
If part of an expensive finishing layer wears away relatively quickly, we are faced with a remarkable combination.
A very expensive product.
Potentially limited durability.
And additional fluorinated material released into the environment.
This alone does not tell us how much PFOA was released from a particular product.
But it certainly gives us a good reason to ask some uncomfortable questions.
Were Alternatives Available?
And now we come to the heart of our argument.
Alternative fluorinated chemical technologies already existed before the European restrictions on PFOA.
Alongside long-chain C8 chemistry, compounds with shorter fluorinated chains were also developed.
Of course, this does not mean that all these alternatives were automatically safe or environmentally harmless.
They could differ in persistence, mobility, chemical properties and health risks.
Nevertheless, one very interesting question remains:
If fluorinated technologies could be developed without problematic C8 chemistry, why did that chemistry remain in use for so long?
Was it because of technological advantages?
Manufacturing costs?
Raw material availability?
Established production processes?
Or a combination of all these factors?
Without specific information about the manufacturers' decision-making, we cannot honestly claim that money was the only motivation.
But surely nobody should be surprised that such a question comes to mind.
Why Did Change Require Regulatory Pressure?
Following the restrictions on C8 chemistry, alternative formulations and products based on different fluorinated technologies became increasingly important.
Not all these alternatives were developed only after the restrictions.
Research had already been taking place.
However, stricter regulations created a strong incentive for wider adoption.
And this brings us back to our original theory.
Manufacturers undoubtedly played a crucial role in the technological development of fluorinated ski waxes.
At the same time, their products and the ways they were used raised genuine occupational health and environmental concerns.
This does not automatically mean that the manufacturers themselves caused the legislative restrictions on PFOA.
Those restrictions were primarily driven by the risks associated with particular chemicals across multiple industries.
But we can reasonably ask whether an earlier, more decisive transition towards safer solutions might have reduced some of these problems.
And whether commercial interests sometimes stood in the way of technological change.
Which brings us to our rather impolite question:
Could it perhaps have been about money?
We do not know.
But if we want to understand the history of fluorinated ski waxes, we should not be afraid to ask such questions.
What Awaits Us in the Final Part?
In Part I, we followed the rise of fluorinated ski waxes and their extraordinary technological success.
In Part II, we questioned the manufacturers' commercial interests, fluorinated additive concentrations and the actual value of multi-layer waxing.
And in Part III, we reached an issue far more serious than the price of ski wax.
Human health and environmental protection.
Now comes the final step.
We will bring our observations and concerns together.
And try to answer one simple question:
Why should we avoid fluorinated ski waxes?
Perhaps the answer will be much simpler than we might expect.
And perhaps a line from a Czech comedy will help us express it perfectly.
To be continued in Part IV – the final chapter.
Scientific References
- European Commission – Regulation (EU) 2020/784, PFOA and related substances
- Freberg et al. (2010) – Occupational exposure among ski wax technicians
- Nilsson et al. (2013) – Fluorinated compounds and aerosols during ski waxing
- Scientific review (2024) – Inhalation exposure to fluorinated substances
- Research on PFAS in ski wax, snow and soil