Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad vs Universal Padding Fit Kit: which is safer?
Easton Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Our pick
Easton
Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 49/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 4
Material
Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane
Confidence
72%
PossibleFormaldehyde in textile finishes
PossibleAzo dyes in shell fabric
PossibleAdhesive volatiles (VOC/off-gassing)
Easton
Universal Padding Fit Kit
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 43/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 4
Material
foam padding, elastic straps
Confidence
72%
PossiblePolyurethane foam off-gassing (VOCs)
PossibleAdhesive leachables
PossibleElastic synthetic fiber irritation
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Formaldehyde in textile finishes, Azo dyes in shell fabric, Adhesive volatiles (VOC/off-gassing) and Microplastic shedding from foam breakdown on the Easton and not on the Easton.
- We flag Polyurethane foam off-gassing (VOCs), Adhesive leachables, Elastic synthetic fiber irritation and Foam fragmentation and inhalation on the Easton and not on the Easton.
- The Easton is Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane where the Easton is foam padding, elastic straps, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- These two are level, close enough that price and fit should decide it rather than our grade.
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 sports equipment padding: see the full ranking