PFAS in Running & Athletic Shoes, Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Based on available materials and data, New Balance's Women's Fresh Foam Arishi v4 is the strongest performer we've reviewed in the running shoe category, landing a "Good" grade (65/100) in our model-based estimate, while several waterproof and trail-oriented New Balance models built with Gore-Tex membranes score "Bad" (20/100) for the same brand. That split matters more than any single brand reputation, the presence or absence of waterproofing technology, not the logo on the shoe, appears to be the biggest swing factor in PFAS-related concern across the athletic footwear we've graded.

The pattern is consistent with what we see across other waterproof categories, including waterproof boots and rain jackets, membranes and coatings designed to repel water are the most common place PFAS-family chemistry shows up, while non-waterproof mesh trainers tend to carry fewer red flags in publicly available disclosures. Below, we break down four real graded shoes, what they're made of, what the brand claims, and what to actually avoid if PFAS exposure is a concern for you.

Summary Comparison

Product	PFAS Grade (Model Estimate)	Verdict
New Balance Women's Fresh Foam Arishi v4 Shoes	Good (65/100)	Lower concern based on reviewed materials; no waterproof membrane
New Balance Men's Fresh Foam Arishi v4 GTX Running	Bad (20/100)	Higher concern, Gore-Tex waterproof construction
New Balance Men's DynaSoft Nitrel v6 Gore-Tex	Bad (20/100)	Higher concern, Gore-Tex waterproof trail shoe
New Balance Men's Fresh Foam X Hierro v9	Bad (20/100)	Higher concern, trail-running construction flagged in our review

The Standout, Fresh Foam Arishi v4 (Women's)

Materials, Engineered mesh upper, Fresh Foam midsole, rubber outsole. No waterproof membrane or DWR (durable water repellent) coating is part of the standard build.

Brand claims, New Balance markets this as a lightweight, breathable daily trainer. We found no explicit PFAS-free claim attached to this specific model in materials we reviewed, and any such claim would need third-party verification before being treated as confirmed rather than brand-stated.

Pros, Scores "Good" (65/100) in our model-based estimate, which reflects the absence of the waterproofing chemistry that tends to drag other shoes down. Simple mesh-and-foam construction generally has fewer PFAS-associated inputs than technical waterproof builds.

Cons, A 65/100 is "Good," not a clean bill of health. It's a model-based estimate from materials and public disclosure, not a lab test, so it should not be read as confirmation the shoe contains zero PFAS-family compounds. There is no evidence of PFAS found in reviewed sources for this specific SKU, but that reflects the limits of available disclosure, not a guarantee.

The Cautionary Cluster, Gore-Tex and Trail Models

Three New Balance models in our database land at "Bad" (20/100), the Men's Fresh Foam Arishi v4 GTX Running shoe, the Men's DynaSoft Nitrel v6 Gore-Tex, and the Men's Fresh Foam X Hierro v9.

Materials, The GTX Arishi and DynaSoft Nitrel both use Gore-Tex membrane technology, historically associated with fluoropolymer-based waterproofing (a PFAS subclass), plus mesh or synthetic uppers and rubber outsoles built for wet-weather or trail conditions. The Fresh Foam X Hierro v9 is a trail runner with a more rugged upper and traction-focused outsole, also flagged in our review, likely tied to water-resistant or durability treatments common in trail shoe construction.

Brand claims, New Balance does not, to our knowledge, make an explicit PFAS-free claim on these models; Gore-Tex as a licensed technology has its own historical association with PFAS chemistry, though manufacturers across the industry have been transitioning formulations in recent years. We treat any transition claims as brand-stated unless backed by third-party lab verification.

Pros, These are legitimate performance shoes, genuine waterproofing and trail durability that many runners specifically shop for, and that functional benefit is real regardless of the PFAS grade.

Cons, All three score "Bad" (20/100) in our model-based estimate, the lowest tier in our system. Based on available materials and data, waterproof membrane technology is the common thread linking these three to higher PFAS-related concern. This is an estimate from materials and disclosure patterns, not a laboratory finding of PFAS presence, but the score reflects meaningfully higher concern than the mesh-only Arishi v4.

What to Avoid

• Gore-Tex or generic "waterproof membrane" labeling without a stated PFAS-free membrane technology. Waterproof-breathable laminates are historically one of the most common PFAS carriers in footwear.
• Unlabeled "water-resistant" trail or hiking shoes. Durable water repellent (DWR) coatings sprayed onto uppers are a frequent, often undisclosed, source of PFAS-family chemistry.
• Vague sustainability language like "eco-conscious" or "next-gen materials" with no specific PFAS-free membrane or coating claim attached. This is marketing language, not a verified disclosure.
• Any shoe marketed for rain, mud, or snow performance where the brand doesn't specify what the waterproofing chemistry actually is.

If you're shopping outside footwear too, the same logic applies broadly to rain jackets waterproof boots, and camping tents and tarps, categories where waterproofing performance and PFAS concern tend to move together.

Our Pick

Based on available materials and data, the New Balance Women's Fresh Foam Arishi v4 is our recommended starting point among the shoes we've graded, not because it's confirmed PFAS-free (it isn't, and no source in our review makes that claim), but because its non-waterproof mesh construction corresponds to a meaningfully lower concern estimate (65/100, "Good") than the Gore-Tex and trail-oriented models in the same brand lineup. If you need genuine wet-weather or trail performance, the GTX Arishi, DynaSoft Nitrel v6 Gore-Tex, and Fresh Foam X Hierro v9 all deliver that function but currently carry "Bad" (20/100) estimates, and runners prioritizing lower PFAS-related concern may want to weigh that functional trade-off deliberately. For a broader look across categories, our product finder lets you compare graded items side by side, and if you're building out a full workout wardrobe, our activewear guide covers the same waterproofing-versus-concern trade-off in apparel.

FAQ

Does a "Bad" PFAS grade mean the shoe definitely contains PFAS?

No. Our grades are model-based estimates built from publicly available materials, construction details, and disclosure patterns, not laboratory test results. A "Bad" score reflects features, like Gore-Tex membranes, that are historically associated with higher PFAS-related concern, but it is not the same as a confirmed lab finding of PFAS presence.

Are non-waterproof running shoes automatically a better choice?

Based on available materials and data, non-waterproof shoes tend to score better in our model because they lack the membrane and coating chemistry most associated with PFAS use in footwear. That said, "lower concern" is not the same as "no PFAS," and other treated components (laces, foams, adhesives) aren't always fully disclosed by brands.

Is there a proven health risk from wearing PFAS-treated shoes?

PFAS exposure has been studied in relation to various health outcomes, but association is not causation, and footwear is generally considered a minor exposure pathway compared to water, food packaging, or occupational contact. Anyone with specific health concerns should consult a medical professional rather than relying on product grades alone.