- Local: (516) 346-4636
- Toll-Free: (800) 886-6060
- Fax: (516) 346-4366
- Email: kflynn@nationalwebbing.com
Calling webbing “waterproof” is easy. Proving it under repeated exposure, drying cycles, and real-world use is not. Water does more than make a strap wet. It changes fiber chemistry, alters mechanical behavior, accelerates degradation, and exposes weaknesses that are invisible in dry conditions. When webbing is used around docks, boats, outdoor equipment, industrial washdowns, or coastal environments, the question is not whether it can survive getting wet once. The real question is how the material behaves every time it gets wet, every time it dries, and what accumulates after hundreds of those cycles.
Looking strictly at cotton, nylon, and polypropylene, the differences are not subtle. They are structural, chemical, and decisive.
To understand performance in wet environments, the first distinction that matters is whether water stays on the fiber or moves into it.
Cotton is a natural cellulose fiber. At the molecular level, cellulose is covered in hydroxyl groups that actively attract and bond with water molecules. This makes cotton aggressively hydrophilic. Nylon is a synthetic polyamide. It is not designed to attract water, but its amide groups still form hydrogen bonds with moisture. Polypropylene, by contrast, is a non-polar hydrocarbon polymer. There is nothing in its molecular structure that water wants to bind to.
That single difference determines everything that follows.
Cotton behaves differently in water than most people expect. When cotton fibers absorb water, additional hydrogen bonding temporarily increases tensile strength. This is a well-documented phenomenon in textile science and explains why cotton does not immediately fail when soaked. The problem is not short-term strength. The problem is everything else that comes with absorption.
Cotton can absorb more than twenty times its own weight in water. That water does not sit on the surface. It penetrates the fiber, swelling it, increasing mass, and dramatically slowing drying time. Once wet, cotton webbing can remain damp for extended periods, especially in thick constructions or shaded environments.
Slow drying introduces secondary failures. Moisture retention creates ideal conditions for mildew growth. Because cotton is organic, mildew does not merely sit on the surface; it feeds on the fiber itself. Over time, this leads to odor, discoloration, and gradual loss of structural integrity. Repeated wet-dry cycles accelerate this process, particularly in humid or salt-rich environments.
There is also dimensional instability. Cotton fibers swell when wet and can shrink after drying. Over repeated cycles, cotton webbing may tighten, distort, or lose dimensional consistency. For applications that depend on repeatable length, tension, or fit, this becomes a functional failure, not a cosmetic one.
Cotton can be treated or coated to improve water resistance, but those treatments eventually wear off, crack, or compromise flexibility. Even treated cotton remains hydrophilic at its core. Cotton webbing can tolerate occasional moisture. It is not designed for persistent wet environments.
Nylon is often assumed to be waterproof because it is synthetic. It is not. Nylon absorbs water into the fiber structure, typically several percent of its own weight under saturation. This absorption does not flood the material the way cotton does, but it is enough to matter mechanically.
When nylon absorbs water, its polymer chains become more mobile. This increases flexibility but reduces tensile strength. In practical terms, nylon webbing loses approximately ten to twenty percent of its strength when wet. Once dried, strength returns, but during use in wet conditions, the reduction is real and measurable.
Drying time is moderate. Nylon dries faster than cotton but slower than polypropylene. Moisture trapped within the fiber takes time to evaporate, particularly in thicker webbings or low-airflow environments.
Durability-wise, nylon performs well. It does not rot, and microorganisms do not consume the fiber itself. Mildew can grow on surface contaminants, but it does not structurally degrade nylon the way it does cotton. Repeated wet-dry cycles do not cause intrinsic damage, provided the material is allowed to dry between uses.
Nylon’s strength-to-weight ratio, abrasion resistance, and elasticity make it a strong candidate for applications where load performance matters more than moisture exclusion. However, in true marine environments where webbing is frequently soaked, splashed, or submerged, nylon’s water absorption introduces variability. Strength changes with moisture content. Weight changes. Drying time matters.
Nylon tolerates water. It does not ignore it.
Polypropylene behaves differently because water cannot enter the fiber. Polypropylene absorbs essentially no water. When submerged, water remains on the surface and drains off immediately. There is no swelling, no weight gain, and no internal moisture retention. Drying time is limited to surface evaporation, which is why polypropylene webbing often appears dry minutes after exposure.
Because water does not interact with the polymer structure, polypropylene maintains full tensile strength when wet. There is no wet-strength penalty, no softening, and no mechanical variability tied to moisture content.
The implications of this are significant in repeated-use environments. Wet-dry cycling has no cumulative effect on polypropylene. There is no opportunity for mildew growth because the fiber does not stay damp. There is no rot because the polymer is inert. There is no dimensional change because the fiber does not swell.
Polypropylene also floats. This is not a minor detail in marine or industrial washdown environments. Floating webbing is easier to retrieve, inspect, and manage. It does not sink, snag, or disappear when dropped in water.
The tradeoff is that polypropylene is not as strong or abrasion-resistant as nylon on a size-for-size basis. It has a lower melting temperature and can degrade under prolonged UV exposure if not stabilized. These are real considerations, but they are not water-related failures. From a water performance standpoint, polypropylene is not just better. It is categorically different.
Single exposure tells very little. The real test is repetition. Cotton accumulates damage with every cycle. Moisture retention encourages biological growth and fiber breakdown. Nylon cycles cleanly but experiences temporary strength loss when wet. Polypropylene shows no meaningful change.
In marine, outdoor, or washdown-heavy environments, webbing is rarely wet once. It is wet, dried, and wet again, often without full drying in between. Under those conditions, material behavior compounds. Polypropylene’s advantage is not that it dries faster. It is that nothing happens when it gets wet.
Cotton feels familiar and natural, but water quickly exposes its weaknesses. Nylon is strong and versatile, but water alters its behavior under load. Polypropylene is less forgiving in heat and abrasion, but water is irrelevant to it. If the goal is to select webbing that performs consistently, predictably, and durably in wet or marine environments, the decision is not subjective.
Polypropylene is the correct choice. Not because it is cheaper or lighter or more common, but because its chemistry fundamentally resists water rather than accommodating it. When the environment includes repeated exposure to moisture, salt, spray, or submersion that distinction matters more than any catalog specification.
