PFAS in Hiking Shoes and Trail Runners, Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Every hiking shoe, trail runner, and waterproof hiking boot currently scored in our database, across Timberland, Garmont, and Merrell, lands in the same place, a "Bad" grade with a 20 out of 100 safety score. That is not a typo and it is not one brand underperforming while another pulls ahead. It reflects a category-wide pattern, waterproof membranes, mesh linings, and durable water repellent (DWR) coatings on trail footwear have historically relied on PFAS chemistry to shed water and resist mud, and none of the twelve specific models reviewed here has cleared that bar in our model-based assessment.

So there is no "winner" in the traditional sense among the graded products below, and we want to be upfront about that rather than manufacture a false hero. Based on available materials and public disclosure data, every model on this list, from the Timberland Men's Killington Trekker Sneaker Boots to the Merrell Women's Moab 3, carries the same Bad rating. If you need a hiking or trail shoe today, your best move is to compare against our broader waterproof boots roundup and use the PFAS Finder tool to check any specific pair before you buy, since newer product lines and non-waterproof trail runners (which skip the membrane entirely) tend to carry lower PFAS risk than fully waterproofed hiking boots.

Summary comparison

Product	PFAS grade	Verdict
Timberland Men's Killington Trekker Sneaker Boots	Bad (20/100)	Waterproof leather boot, higher PFAS concern
Timberland Women's White Ledge Mid Waterproof Hiking Boot	Bad (20/100)	Waterproof mid-boot, higher PFAS concern
Timberland Men's Killington Trekker Mid Sneaker	Bad (20/100)	Mid-height hybrid sneaker, higher PFAS concern
Garmont Men's Dragontail MNT GTX	Bad (20/100)	Gore-Tex lined approach shoe, higher PFAS concern
Garmont Men's T8 Bifida Boots	Bad (20/100)	Military-style tactical boot, higher PFAS concern
Garmont Women's Dragontail G-Dry Hiking Shoes	Bad (20/100)	Proprietary waterproof membrane, higher PFAS concern
Garmont Men's Pinnacle Trek Gore-Tex Hiking Boots	Bad (20/100)	Gore-Tex backpacking boot, higher PFAS concern
Garmont Men's 9.81 Onyx GTX	Bad (20/100)	Lightweight Gore-Tex trail shoe, higher PFAS concern
Garmont Men's Groove G-Dry Hiking Shoes	Bad (20/100)	G-Dry membrane hiking shoe, higher PFAS concern
Garmont Dragontail MNT Evo GTX Approach Shoes	Bad (20/100)	Gore-Tex approach shoe, higher PFAS concern
Merrell Women's Moab 3	Bad (20/100)	Non-waterproof trail shoe, higher PFAS concern
Merrell Men's Moab 3 Waterproof	Bad (20/100)	Waterproof version of Moab 3, higher PFAS concern

All scores above reflect our model-based estimate drawn from materials disclosure and public data, not a laboratory test of each individual pair. A "Bad" grade means available information points to a higher likelihood of PFAS-related components, typically in a waterproof membrane, mesh treatment, or DWR finish, not that the shoe has been lab-confirmed to contain a specific PFAS compound at a specific concentration.

Timberland, three models, same Bad grade

Timberland's trail and hiking lineup in our database includes three models, and all three land at Bad with a 20/100 score, the Men's Killington Trekker Sneaker Boots, the Women's White Ledge Mid Waterproof Hiking Boot, and the Men's Killington Trekker Mid Sneaker.

Materials, All three use a leather or leather-and-mesh upper paired with a waterproof membrane and a rubber lug outsole, a construction type that has historically depended on fluorinated DWR treatments to keep the leather from saturating in wet conditions.

Brand claims, Timberland markets these as waterproof, all-weather footwear suitable for light-to-moderate trail use, and the brand has made broader public statements about moving toward PFC-free (sometimes phrased PFOA-free) treatments across parts of its catalog. We treat these as brand-stated claims rather than third-party verified results unless an independent lab report is cited for the specific SKU, and none of the three Timberland models here currently carry a lower-concern grade in our data.

Pros, Durable leather construction, genuine waterproofing performance in the field, wide availability, reasonable price point for the category.

Cons, Based on available materials and data, all three carry a Bad grade and no independent, product-specific PFAS-free verification is reflected in our records. Buyers prioritizing lower PFAS concern should compare against the broader waterproof boots category before choosing.

Garmont, the largest group on this list, uniformly Bad

Garmont has seven models represented in our database, more than any other brand in this guide, and every one of them grades Bad at 20/100, the Men's Dragontail MNT GTX, the Men's T8 Bifida Boots, the Women's Dragontail G-Dry Hiking Shoes, the Men's Pinnacle Trek Gore-Tex Hiking Boots, the Men's 9.81 Onyx GTX, the Men's Groove G-Dry Hiking Shoes, and the Dragontail MNT Evo GTX Approach Shoes.

Materials, Four of the seven (Dragontail MNT GTX, Pinnacle Trek, 9.81 Onyx GTX, Dragontail MNT Evo GTX) use licensed Gore-Tex membranes, which have historically been built on fluoropolymer technology. The other three (T8 Bifida, Dragontail G-Dry, Groove G-Dry) use Garmont's in-house "G-Dry" waterproof-breathable membrane, a proprietary alternative to Gore-Tex that nonetheless shares the same general category risk profile in our data.

Brand claims, Garmont positions its Gore-Tex-lined models around Gore-Tex's own brand-level sustainability commitments, including Gore's publicized shift toward non-PFOA, and in some newer product lines, non-PFC, membrane chemistry. These are brand- and supplier-level statements, not product-specific third-party lab verification for the exact SKUs listed here, and our current data does not show any of these seven Garmont models clearing into a lower-concern grade.

Pros, Technical, mountaineering-grade build quality, genuine waterproof-breathable performance, strong grip from Vibram-style outsoles, well suited to alpine approach and technical trail use.

Cons, All seven share the same Bad grade in our model-based estimate, and the heavy reliance on membrane technology across the entire lineup means there is currently no Garmont hiking shoe in our database that scores better. Shoppers who specifically want to avoid membrane-based waterproofing may want to look at non-waterproof trail runners instead, which skip the membrane layer altogether, though DWR-treated uppers can still carry PFAS concern.

Merrell, two versions of the same shoe, same grade

Merrell's Moab 3 is one of the best-selling trail shoes in North America, and our database includes both the non-waterproof Women's Moab 3 and the Men's Moab 3 Waterproof. Both grade Bad at 20/100.

Materials, The standard Moab 3 uses a suede leather and mesh upper with a DWR-treated finish and no membrane. The Waterproof version adds a waterproof membrane under the same general upper construction. It is notable that even the non-membrane version scores the same as the membrane version in our data, which suggests the DWR finish on the upper itself, not just the waterproof liner, is a meaningful factor in the grade.

Brand claims, Merrell has publicly discussed reformulating some DWR finishes away from long-chain PFAS chemistry across parts of its footwear range. As with other brands here, we treat this as a brand-stated direction rather than a verified, product-specific lab result, and it has not moved either Moab 3 variant out of the Bad grade in our current records.

Pros, Excellent comfort out of the box, strong traction, one of the most widely reviewed and tested trail shoes on the market, available in both waterproof and non-waterproof builds to suit different climates.

Cons, Both variants, including the non-waterproof version many buyers assume would score better, carry the same Bad grade based on available materials and data. If DWR-free uppers matter to you, ask retailers directly about the specific treatment used on current production runs, since formulations can change between model years without a name change.

What to avoid

• Assuming "waterproof" and "non-waterproof" versions of the same shoe differ meaningfully in PFAS risk. The Merrell Moab 3 comparison above shows both the membrane and non-membrane builds landing at the same Bad grade, likely because the upper's DWR treatment matters as much as the internal membrane.
• Treating brand sustainability statements as product-level proof. Gore's and various brands' public PFOA-free or PFC-free commitments are real corporate initiatives, but they are brand-stated claims at the material-supplier level, not independent lab verification of each specific shoe model, and our data does not currently show any of the twelve models above achieving a lower-concern grade as a result.
• Buying Gore-Tex or G-Dry lined boots expecting a lower PFAS profile by default. All eleven membrane-based or DWR-treated hiking models in this guide, across three brands, land at Bad in our scoring.
• Ignoring the rest of your gear. PFAS exposure from footwear is only one slice of a broader picture that includes outdoor clothing cosmetics, and even food storage, so a single low-scoring shoe purchase will not meaningfully change total exposure on its own.
• Skipping the check at purchase time. Formulations change between production runs, so run any specific SKU you're considering through the PFAS Finder before buying rather than relying solely on a past model year's grade.

Our pick

We are not going to call any of these twelve hiking shoes or trail runners a safe pick or a PFAS-free pick, because based on available materials and data, none of them earns that distinction, every one of them scores Bad at 20/100 in our model-based assessment. What we can say is that this is a category-wide pattern rather than a single-brand failure, Timberland, Garmont, and Merrell all show the same result across waterproof boots, approach shoes, and trail runners alike.

If you need a hiking shoe now, our honest recommendation is to treat all twelve of these models as equivalent in PFAS concern and instead decide based on fit, terrain, and durability needs, then check the broader waterproof boots category and the PFAS Finder for any newer releases or reformulated lines that may have entered the database with better scores since this guide was published. Non-waterproof, non-membrane trail runners without a DWR-treated upper remain the most plausible lower-concern category in footwear generally, though we have not yet graded a model in that specific configuration at a passing score in this product set.

Frequently asked questions

Is any hiking shoe or trail runner in this guide actually PFAS-free?

No. Based on available materials and data, all twelve models reviewed here, from Timberland, Garmont, and Merrell, carry a Bad grade with a 20/100 score in our model-based estimate. None of them has independent, product-specific lab verification showing zero PFAS content in our current records, and we do not describe any of them as PFAS-free or safe.

Does a Gore-Tex label mean a shoe contains more PFAS than a proprietary membrane like G-Dry?

Not necessarily. In our data, Garmont's Gore-Tex-lined models and its G-Dry proprietary-membrane models both land at the same Bad grade, and Merrell's non-waterproof Moab 3 scores identically to its waterproof, membrane-equipped counterpart. This suggests the DWR finish on the upper may matter as much as the internal membrane technology, though this remains a model-based estimate rather than a confirmed chemical breakdown.

Can wearing these shoes actually expose me to PFAS, and is that linked to health effects?

Some research has associated certain PFAS compounds with health effects in exposed populations, but that research generally reflects broad environmental and occupational exposure rather than footwear use specifically, and association is not the same as proven causation for any individual product or wearer. Footwear is one small, uncertain contributor to overall PFAS exposure alongside water, food packaging, and other consumer goods, and no single purchase decision should be treated as a major health intervention on its own.