Women Asolo Field GV vs Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C: which is safer?

Converse Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.

Women Asolo Field GV

Asolo

Women Asolo Field GV

PFAS grade

Bad 20/100

Overall grade

Bad 2/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 3

Material

leather upper, unspecified waterproof treatment

Confidence

35%

PossibleFluorinated waterproofing agents (PFAS)

PossibleAdhesive off-gassing (volatile organics)

ReportedDegradation of waterproof coating over time

Our pick

Converse Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C

Converse

Chuck Taylor All Star Cx Exp2 4.5 Men A07199C

PFAS grade

Good 65/100

Overall grade

Good 57/100

Verdict

Skip

Hazard flags

⚑ 2

Material

Canvas upper, rubber sole

Confidence

72%

PossibleAzo dyes in canvas

PossibleFormaldehyde resin finishing on canvas

Where these two actually differ

  • We flag Fluorinated waterproofing agents (PFAS), Adhesive off-gassing (volatile organics) and Degradation of waterproof coating over time on the Asolo and not on the Converse.
  • We flag Azo dyes in canvas and Formaldehyde resin finishing on canvas on the Converse and not on the Asolo.
  • The Asolo is leather upper, unspecified waterproof treatment where the Converse is Canvas upper, rubber sole, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
  • The gap is 45 points, wide enough that this is not a close call, and the Converse is the one to buy.
  • We are less certain about the Asolo grade, at 35% confidence against 72%, because it discloses less.

Both products run through the same public rubric: materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →

More running & athletic shoes: see the full ranking