Introduction: The Problem with Wet Raincoats

Introduction: The Problem with Wet Raincoats

Imagine walking through rain and not seeing a single wet spot on your raincoat afterward. Most rain jackets protect you from getting soaked, but when the storm passes, you’re often left with dark streaks or damp patches on your clothes. These wet traces come from water that clings to the surface or soaks in slightly, making the coat look and feel less than perfect. Even the usual waterproof materials like nylon and polyester eventually show these marks, especially after you’ve worn them for a while.


Why Teflon Is Different

Teflon, also called PTFE, is famous for not letting things stick to it. That’s why you find it in nonstick frying pans and fancy lab gear. For raincoats, what matters is Teflon’s super-low “surface energy.” Think of surface energy as how much a material “wants” to attract water or let it spread. Teflon’s is about 18 millinewtons per meter, which is much lower than most plastics or fabrics. When rain hits Teflon, the water forms round droplets and rolls right off instead of spreading out or soaking in. This happens because the contact angle—the way a droplet meets the surface—is very large, often over 150 degrees. The bigger this angle, the less chance there is for wet marks to form.

If you zoom in on Teflon with a microscope, you’d see that its smooth surface, or even tiny nano-sized roughness added by plasma treatment, makes it even harder for water to “hold on.” This is similar to how lotus leaves stay clean in the wild—a trick called the “lotus effect”—since water picks up dirt as it rolls away.


Making the Material

There are a few ways to give fabric this Teflon power. One is to dip the fabric—usually nylon or polyester—into a liquid PTFE solution. After that, it’s baked at a high temperature so the Teflon layer sticks well. Another method uses a plasma — a kind of energized gas — to roughen the surface of the cloth before a fine Teflon spray is applied. This roughness on the microscopic scale helps water droplets sit up high and roll away easily. A third way uses a thin, expanded Teflon (ePTFE) layer, like you find in Gore-Tex. This ePTFE is full of tiny holes just big enough to let sweat escape but too small for rain, making the coat both waterproof and breathable.


How It’s Tested

To see if these new raincoat materials really work, scientists check how water interacts with the surface. First, they measure the “contact angle” by placing a tiny drop of water and seeing how round it stays. If it’s above 150 degrees, that’s a great sign. Next, they tilt the fabric to see at what angle the water starts rolling away. The lower the angle, the more water-repellent it is—ideally less than five degrees. High-speed cameras catch whether any water sticks behind as a trace. There are also tests for how well the fabric breathes, and how the coating stands up to being rubbed or folded, since nobody wants a raincoat that only works when it’s brand new.


What’s Been Found

When coated with Teflon, the fabric doesn’t just repel water in the lab—it stays free of wet streaks and dark patches even after you bend it or rub it. Expanded Teflon membranes work well, too, but sometimes a little water gets into stitched seams. Standard raincoat materials, like those with a simple polyurethane or PVC coating, tend to darken or show traces after rain because they let a little water stick or soak in. The Teflon designs solve this.

However, there’s a tradeoff. If you use a thick layer of PTFE, it can make the fabric nearly airtight, trapping sweat and making you uncomfortable. The best designs mix superhydrophobic coatings with a “breathable” textile underneath, so rain rolls off but you stay cool and dry on the inside.


Looking Ahead

New raincoats could do more than keep us dry; they could hide every sign that it ever rained in the first place. That’s what makes Teflon so promising for rainwear. There’s still work to be done, especially in making these materials eco-friendly and finding ways to repair or renew the coatings over years of use. Fabric scientists are trying things like self-healing polymers, special surface patterns made with lasers, and mixing Teflon with safer chemicals to make the ultimate “invisible trace” raincoat.


References
Barthlott, W. & Neinhuis, C. (1997). Purity of the Sacred Lotus. Planta 202, 1–8.
Wilkes, R. W. T. (1976). Surface Energy of PTFE and Its Copolymers. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 55, 29–38.
Gore Inc. (2022). Understanding ePTFE Membranes. Technical Bulletin.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.