Ask a fabric supplier for a water-repellent finish today, and there is a good chance you will get two very different answers: C6, or C0. Both claim to keep fabric dry. Only one is currently facing phase-out pressure from regulators in the EU, California, and New York, and from major apparel brands. For buyers sourcing water-repellent textiles right now, the choice is no longer just about performance. It is about which chemistry will still be sellable in your target market two years from now.
The Chemistry Behind C0 and C6
What is C6 DWR
C6 durable water repellent (DWR) finishes use short-chain fluorocarbon polymers, specifically six-carbon fluorinated side chains, to coat individual fibers. This chemistry lowers the surface energy of the fiber to roughly 12 mJ/m², which is below the surface tension of most water and oils. As a result, C6 finishes deliver both water and oil repellency, a combination that few fluorine-free systems can fully match.
C6 chemistry replaced older C8 fluorotelomer finishes over a decade ago. C8 degrades into PFOA, a substance known for being persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment. C6 degrades into perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) instead, which has a shorter environmental half-life and lower bioaccumulation potential. However, PFHxA is not free of regulatory scrutiny, as covered in the compliance section below.
For buyers sourcing C6 products, formulations such as the Skyguard C6-C8 Waterproofer combine water and oil resistance with good wash fastness on both cellulose and synthetic fibers, applied at typical dosages of 10 to 40 g/L, and are produced without PFOS, PFOA, or APEO.

What is C0 DWR
C0 refers to fluorine-free water repellent chemistry. Instead of fluorocarbon side chains, C0 finishes rely on dendrimer, wax, or polyurethane-based polymers to build a hydrophobic fiber surface. These systems typically reach a surface energy of 20 to 25 mJ/m², which is sufficient to repel water effectively but generally not enough to provide strong oil repellency.
Demand for C0 finishes is growing quickly because they carry no PFAS-related compliance risk, a factor that matters more each year as regulatory scope widens. Ranges such as the Skyguard Fluorine-free Waterproofer line are applied at roughly 10 to 80 g/L depending on the durability required, contain no APEO, and are built for fabrics where oil repellency is not a functional requirement, including most outerwear, home textiles, and fashion applications.
Key Structural Differences
| Attribute | C6 (Fluorocarbon) | C0 (Fluorine-Free) |
| Surface energy | Approx. 12 mJ/m² | Approx. 20 to 25 mJ/m² |
| Water repellency | Excellent | Good to excellent |
| Oil repellency | Yes | Limited or none |
| PFAS content | Present (PFHxA-based) | None |
| Typical curing temperature | 150 to 160°C | 160 to 180°C |
Performance Comparison
Water and Oil Repellency
C6 finishes remain the benchmark wherever oil, grease, or organic stain resistance is needed alongside water repellency, such as workwear exposed to machine oils or food-contact aprons. C0 finishes have closed most of the gap on pure water repellency, with many recent formulations achieving results comparable to C6 under standardized water resistance testing. On oil-based stains, however, C0 finishes still fall short.
Durability and Wash Resistance
Both chemistries rely on physical adsorption when first applied to the fabric, and this bond weakens progressively with repeated laundering and detergent exposure. A crosslinking agent extends wash durability by binding DWR polymer chains to each other and to reactive groups on the fiber surface, converting a loosely adsorbed coating into a chemically anchored one.
The Sylic Cross-linking Agent, for example, is dosed in the same bath at 10 to 30 percent of the water repellent quantity, contains no APEO, PFOA, PFOS, or formaldehyde, and is compatible with both C6 and fluorine-free systems, making it a practical add-on when a finish needs to withstand 20 or more industrial or home wash cycles.

Breathability and Hand Feel
Both C0 and C6 finishes coat the fiber surface rather than filling the pore spaces between yarns, so breathability is generally preserved at correct application levels. Two factors most often compromise this balance:
- Overdosing the finish, which can partially block inter-yarn porosity and stiffen the fabric hand
- Uneven bath concentration, which creates localized high-add zones across the fabric width
C0 finishes sometimes require slightly higher application levels to match C6 water repellency, which makes dosing accuracy and bath uniformity especially important for maintaining a soft, breathable result.
Global Regulatory Landscape
REACH and EU Restrictions
The EU regulates PFAS in textiles under REACH Annex XVII. A restriction on PFHxA, the degradation product of C6 chemistry, takes effect in the EU and EEA from 2026, and a broader restriction covering the wider PFAS family is currently under evaluation by the European Chemicals Agency. Buyers and brands sourcing for the EU market should treat C6 as a chemistry under increasing regulatory pressure rather than a long-term safe option, and should monitor ECHA’s PFAS regulatory updates for the latest scope and timelines.
US State Regulations
Regulation is not limited to the EU. Two US states have already enacted PFAS restrictions specific to textiles and apparel:
- California AB 1817 bans the manufacture, distribution, and sale of new textile articles containing intentionally added PFAS above 100 ppm total organic fluorine as of January 1, 2025, dropping to 50 ppm from January 1, 2027. Outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions has an extension until January 1, 2028. The full requirements are set out in the official bill text.
- New York Environmental Conservation Law § 37-0121 prohibits the sale of new apparel containing intentionally added PFAS as of January 1, 2025, with a numeric concentration limit to follow by January 1, 2027, and a further restriction on outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions from January 1, 2028. Details are published on the NYSDEC PFAS in Apparel Law page.
Other US states are considering similar legislation, so suppliers shipping into the United States should track state-level rules separately from federal policy, since no single nationwide PFAS textile ban currently exists.
Brand and Retailer Requirements
Many global apparel and outdoor brands have moved faster than formal regulation. The Manufacturing Restricted Substances List published by ZDHC, widely followed across the industry supply chain, now restricts PFAS-based formulations for fashion, sport, and outdoor apparel as well as home textiles, with exceptions limited to legally mandated protective uses.
Suppliers working with brands that reference the ZDHC MRSL should expect fluorine-free finishes to be requested by default, even in regions where PFAS use in textiles is not yet formally restricted by law.
Use Cases by Industry
Outdoor and Sportswear
This segment historically drove demand for C6 finishes because of their combined water and oil resistance under extreme conditions. It is now also the segment moving fastest toward C0, pushed by brand-level PFAS bans and consumer sustainability expectations, even where a modest tradeoff on oil repellency is accepted in exchange.
Workwear and Protective Textiles
Workwear and industrial protective fabrics are more likely to retain C6, or in some cases legacy long-chain chemistry, where oil and chemical splash resistance is a genuine safety requirement and where regulatory exemptions for protective equipment often apply.
Home Textiles and Upholstery
For upholstery, curtains, and other home textile applications, water repellency without oil resistance is usually sufficient, making C0 a strong fit. This segment also tends to be more sensitive to raw material cost shifts, so fluorine-free options that avoid future compliance exposure are increasingly the default recommendation.
Choosing the Right Finish
Key Factors to Consider
Three factors determine which finish fits a given product:
- Target market regulation and brand chemical policy
- Whether oil or grease resistance is a genuine functional requirement, not just water repellency
- The cost of reformulating later under tightening rules, not just the current unit price of the finish
The Skyguard Water & Oil Repellent product range allows side-by-side comparison of C6, fluorine-free, and crosslinking options before committing to a formulation. The range is developed by Skychem Group, a textile dye and auxiliary manufacturer operating since 1999 with R&D centers and production facilities in China, Vietnam, and Singapore, serving more than 1,000 customers across over 70 countries. Its products hold certifications including OEKO-TEX STANDARD 100, GOTS, and ZDHC Level 3, which supports compliance documentation when working with brands that enforce strict chemical policies.
Testing and Certification Tips
Verify performance with standardized tests rather than relying on supplier claims alone:
- Use spray rating and hydrostatic pressure tests to confirm water repellency
- Check wash durability after the specific number of cycles relevant to the product’s expected lifespan
- For any PFAS-related claim, request third-party test data confirming the absence of PFOA, PFOS, and related long-chain substances, particularly for products destined for the EU, California, New York, or brands with strict chemical policies

Conclusion
C6 and C0 finishes are not simply a matter of old chemistry versus new. They serve different performance needs, and the right choice depends on the balance between oil repellency requirements, target market regulation, and brand chemical policy. As PFAS restrictions expand globally, more buyers are shifting toward fluorine-free systems by default, reserving C6 for applications where oil resistance remains genuinely non-negotiable.
FAQs
What is the difference between C0 and C6 finishes?
C6 finishes use short-chain fluorocarbon chemistry that repels both water and oil. C0 finishes are entirely fluorine-free and rely on non-fluorinated polymers that repel water effectively but generally offer limited oil resistance.
Is C6 DWR banned?
Not universally, but its use is narrowing. The EU restricts PFHxA, the substance C6 degrades into, starting in 2026, California and New York already restrict PFAS in textiles and apparel, and many brands have voluntarily phased out C6 ahead of formal regulation in line with policies such as the ZDHC MRSL.
Does C0 perform as well as C6?
On water repellency, modern C0 finishes often perform comparably to C6 when properly formulated and applied. On oil and grease repellency, C0 finishes generally fall short, so the right answer depends on whether oil resistance is a functional requirement for the end product.
How do I choose between C0 and C6?
Base the decision on three factors: whether the product needs oil repellency, whether the target market or brand enforces PFAS restrictions, and how much wash durability the end use requires. A crosslinking agent can improve durability for either chemistry once the base finish is selected.
More reading:





