PFAS in skiing is a ski-wax problem, not a snowmaking problem. The "forever chemicals" that prompted the International Ski Federation's 2023 ban were fluorinated glide waxes applied to ski bases — never snowmaking additives. Snowmaking water has always been PFAS-free. The reckoning matters anyway, because it reset what the sport will tolerate in anything that touches snow.
Key takeaways
- The PFAS controversy in skiing comes from fluorinated glide wax on ski bases — the FIS banned it across all disciplines for the 2023/24 season, and the 2026 Winter Olympics enforced a PFAS-wax prohibition.
- Snowmaking additives were never a PFAS source. Neither biological nucleants (Snomax) nor polymer additives contain per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances. Conflating the two is a common but incorrect assumption.
- SL6733 is PFAS-free and biology-free — an ultra-high-molecular-weight anionic polyacrylamide co-polymer plus a starch nucleant, with no fluorine chemistry anywhere in its composition.
- Being PFAS-free is table stakes, not a differentiator: the real regulatory questions for a snowmaking polymer are REACH registration status, residual monomer control, and TSCA classification — not fluorine.
- The wax ban is strategically useful context: it shows the ski industry can and will remove a chemistry it once considered essential, which raises the bar for what any snow-contact input must be able to withstand in scrutiny.
Is there PFAS in snowmaking?
No. Snowmaking uses water, compressed air, and — in the small share of operations that use them — an additive that is either a biological ice nucleant or a synthetic polymer. None of these are PFAS. The forever-chemicals story in skiing is entirely about fluorinated glide wax on ski bases, a separate product category applied by racers and technicians, not by resort snowmaking crews.
The confusion is understandable. "Chemicals on snow" is an easy phrase to blur, and both stories surfaced in the same few years. But they are physically distinct. Glide wax is a coating rubbed onto the P-Tex base of a ski to reduce friction against the snow; the high-performance versions used per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) because fluorine repels water and dirt and delivers measurable speed. Snowmaking additives, by contrast, are dosed into the water before it leaves the gun, at parts-per-million, to influence how ice crystals form. Different product, different user, different chemistry.
Why did the ski industry ban fluorinated wax?
Because PFAS are persistent, mobile, and increasingly regulated, and race-wax fluorocarbons were being aerosolised and deposited directly onto snow at every waxing bench and start gate. The International Ski Federation implemented a full fluorinated-wax ban for the 2023/24 season across all its disciplines, backed by testing at events.
The concern is well founded. PFAS are called "forever chemicals" because the carbon–fluorine bond resists environmental breakdown, and studies of World Cup wax-technician exposure and of soil around cross-country trails found elevated fluorine signatures. The 2026 Winter Olympics carried the PFAS-wax prohibition into the Games, with compliance testing on skis. That is the mark of a sport treating a long-standing performance chemistry as no longer acceptable — not because the skiing suffered, but because the environmental and human-exposure profile did.
For a snowmaking-additive company, the relevant lesson is not that our category was implicated. It wasn't. The lesson is about the direction of travel: the ski world has demonstrated it will remove an input it once considered indispensable once the persistence data is clear. Anything dosed into snowmaking water should be evaluated against that same standard before it is deployed, not after.
Do snowmaking additives contain PFAS?
No — and this holds for both chemistries on the market. Biological nucleants such as Snomax are protein fragments from inactivated Pseudomonas syringae bacteria; they contain no fluorine. Polymer additives such as SL6733 are carbon-backbone macromolecules built from acrylamide, acrylate, and starch units; they contain no fluorine either. PFAS is defined by carbon–fluorine bonds, and neither additive family has any.
It is worth stating this plainly because the honest version is stronger than an overclaim. We do not say "snowmaking additives were a PFAS problem that DeepSnow solves" — that would be false, and it would smear a competitor's chemistry with a defect it does not have. The accurate framing is that snowmaking additives sit outside the PFAS conversation entirely, and that SL6733 additionally avoids the two other things critics scrutinise: it is free of persistent fluorine chemistry and free of live or inactivated biology. The difference between the two additive families is set out in biological vs chemical snowmaking additives.
| Snow-contact input | Contains PFAS? | Regulatory status (2026) | |---|---|---| | Fluorinated glide wax | Yes (C–F chemistry) | Banned by FIS (2023/24) and at the 2026 Olympics | | Non-fluoro glide wax | No | Permitted; now the racing standard | | Snomax (biological nucleant) | No | Restricted nationally (FR since 2005, AT/Bavaria prohibit all additives); permitted IT/CH/US | | SL6733 (polymer additive) | No | REACH-registration-exempt; TSCA polymer-exemption candidate |
What does "PFAS-free" actually prove about a snowmaking polymer?
Less than it sounds. Being PFAS-free is a floor, not a ceiling — almost every snowmaking additive clears it by default, so it does not distinguish one polymer from another. The regulatory questions that do matter for a snowmaking polymer are about registration pathway, residual-monomer limits, and aquatic fate, and those need to be answered on their own terms.
For SL6733 specifically, the honest regulatory picture is:
- REACH: the polymer is exempt from REACH registration under Article 2(9); its constituent monomers are already registered. There is no "REACH approval certificate" — the correct claim is exemption, not approval.
- TSCA: as an anionic, PFAS-free polymer it is a strong candidate for the 40 CFR 723.250 polymer exemption, pending confirmation that the water-absorbing-polymer exclusion does not apply. Candidate status, not settled fact.
- Biodegradability: polyacrylamide is not readily biodegradable — we say this openly. It is non-bioaccumulative, low in aquatic toxicity, applied at ppm doses, and carries a decades-long agricultural water-use safety record (Xiong et al. 2018, npj Clean Water).
That last point is where a lazy marketer would be tempted to borrow the "forever chemical" frame and imply a rival is contaminated while claiming our polymer "breaks down harmlessly." Both halves would be wrong. PFAS-free does not mean readily biodegradable, and a polymer additive earns trust by stating its real environmental profile, not by hiding behind a fluorine comparison it happens to win by default.
Why does the watershed make additive fate — not PFAS — the real question?
Because snowmaking water returns to the environment. Snow made on a mountain melts in spring and drains back into the same watersheds that feed rivers, aquifers, and drinking-water sources. Anything dosed into that water re-enters the water cycle, which is exactly why the persistent, mobile nature of PFAS made fluorinated wax a problem — and why, for a snowmaking additive, the meaningful questions are about its environmental fate, not about a fluorine chemistry it never contained.
For a polymer additive that means asking the honest questions and answering them with data:
- Persistence: polyacrylamide is not readily biodegradable, but unlike PFAS it is non-bioaccumulative and immobile — it does not migrate through soil and water the way small fluorinated molecules do.
- Toxicity: low aquatic toxicity at the parts-per-million doses used, with a decades-long agricultural water-use record (Xiong et al. 2018, npj Clean Water).
- Residual monomer: free acrylamide held to ≤0.05%, the same ceiling accepted for polyacrylamide used in drinking-water treatment.
This is a genuinely different risk profile from a persistent, mobile forever-chemical — and stating it precisely, rather than hiding behind "PFAS-free," is what makes it credible. It is the same water-cycle logic that underlies the strict Austria and Bavaria additive prohibition: those jurisdictions bar all additives on precautionary water-protection grounds, which is why SL6733's addressable markets are France, Italy, Switzerland, and non-Alpine geographies.
How does the wax reckoning change the bar for snowmaking chemistry?
It raises it — usefully. The fluoro-wax ban shows regulators, federations, and the public will act on persistence and exposure data even against a chemistry with real performance benefits. That is the standard any snowmaking input should expect to be held to, and it is one a well-characterised, ppm-dosed, PFAS-free, biology-free polymer is designed to meet head-on.
The strategic through-line is consistency. DeepSnow's position across every regulatory post is the same: state the accurate status, cite the primary source, and never inflate. Snomax is restricted by national measures, not "banned in the EU"; SL6733 is REACH-exempt, not "REACH-approved"; polyacrylamide is not readily biodegradable, and we say so. The wax story fits that discipline — it is a case of the sport removing a chemistry for a defensible reason, and it strengthens rather than threatens the case for a clean, transparent additive. The fuller comparison of the compliant-chemistry positioning is in the EU-compliant Snomax alternative and the product detail in what SL6733 is.
The bottom line
PFAS is a ski-wax story, and skiing handled it: the FIS and the Olympics removed fluorinated wax on the strength of persistence and exposure evidence. Snowmaking additives were never part of that problem — no additive on the market contains PFAS. SL6733's genuine claim is narrower and more durable than "we fixed the PFAS issue": it is PFAS-free and biology-free by design, and its real regulatory story is told through REACH exemption, TSCA candidacy, and an honest account of biodegradability — not by borrowing a controversy it was never in.
If you are building a clean-input standard for your snowmaking programme and want to see how a transparent polymer additive documents its regulatory profile, request a pilot or send us a message.
SL6733 is pre-commercial: EU lab pilots are targeted for 2026/27 and commercial deployment for 2027/28; regulatory positions summarised here are general and current to mid-2026 — confirm the specific rule with the relevant authority before any deployment. DeepSnow is the platform brand of SnowLabs Limited (Ireland); DeepSnow Srl (Italy) is in formation.