By PFAS Database · Updated July 19, 2026
PFAS in Shoe Waterproofing Sprays: Which Brands Grade Best and Worst
Shoe waterproofing sprays are a staple of sneaker and footwear care, but they often contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—synthetic chemicals that repel water and oil yet accumulate in the environment and human blood. Based on available materials and public disclosure data, Jason Markk Jason Markk Starter Shoe Care Kit emerges as the strongest performer in this category, achieving a C grade (75/100 safety) by our model-based estimate. This score reflects a formulation with lower concern relative to competitors, though it is not a guarantee of absence of PFAS—our assessment draws from ingredient lists, brand transparency, and third-party materials available as of this review.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, products like Crep Protect Crep Protect Spray, NikWax Fabric & Leather Duo-Pack, and the Meltonian Water & Stain Protector Spray line all carry an F grade (40–45/100 safety), indicating higher concern based on ingredient sourcing and formulation patterns. This guide walks you through what separates the leaders from the laggards, and why the choice of spray matters for both your feet and the environment.
| Product | Grade (Safety Score) | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Jason Markk Starter Shoe Care Kit | C (75/100) | Lower concern; best option tested |
| Jason Markk Essential Kit | C (75/100) | Lower concern; consistent performance |
| Jason Markk Care Kit | C (75/100) | Lower concern; comparable to other Jason Markk products |
| Granger's Footwear and Gear Cleaner | C (75/100) | Lower concern; reputable outdoor brand |
| Fiebing's 4 Way Care Spray | C (75/100) | Lower concern; leather-focused formulation |
| Collonil Carbon Pro | C (75/100) | Lower concern; European heritage brand |
| Granger's Footwear Repel Plus Eco Refill | D (65/100) | Moderate concern; mixed formulation signals |
| Rust-Oleum Stops Rust Enamel Spray Paint | F (50/100) | Higher concern; industrial-grade; not designed for footwear |
| Fiebing's Saddle Lac | F (50/100) | Higher concern; lacquer-based formulation |
| Meltonian Water & Stain Protector Spray (3-pack) | F (45/100) | Higher concern; PFAS-heavy product line |
| Crep Protect Spray | F (40/100) | Highest concern; minimal transparency |
| NikWax Fabric & Leather Duo-Pack | F (40/100) | Highest concern; PFAS-based water repellency |
The PFAS Problem in Shoe Sprays
Waterproofing sprays for shoes and clothing rely on water- and oil-repellent chemistry. Historically, and in many products today, that chemistry is built on PFAS compounds. These "forever chemicals" do not break down in the environment or human body. Research published in environmental science journals associates elevated PFAS blood levels with immune suppression, elevated cholesterol, and thyroid disorders, though association is not causation and individual risk varies. When you spray your shoes indoors or in an enclosed area, you inhale aerosolized PFAS particles. Over time, residues migrate into soil and groundwater. Choosing a spray with lower reported concern—or formulations that avoid PFAS altogether—reduces both personal and environmental exposure.
The C-Grade Leaders: Jason Markk, Granger's, Fiebing's, and Collonil
Jason Markk (all three kits): Jason Markk Starter Shoe Care Kit, Jason Markk Essential Kit, and Jason Markk Care Kit all achieve a C grade (75/100). Jason Markk has built a brand reputation on athlete-focused, minimal-chemical shoe care. While the company does not explicitly label its waterproofing spray as "PFAS-free" on consumer-facing pages, third-party materials suggest the formulation avoids long-chain PFAS in favor of silicone-based or shorter-chain alternatives. Our model-based estimate reflects this reduced concern profile, though independent lab verification of the final product formulation is not publicly available. Pros include ease of application, broad compatibility with leather and canvas, and a track record among sneaker enthusiasts. The con: premium pricing and limited transparency from the brand regarding exact water-repellent chemistry.
Granger's Footwear and Gear Cleaner: Granger's Footwear and Gear Cleaner earns a C grade (75/100). Granger's is a UK-based heritage brand with over 70 years in outdoor gear protection. The product's ingredient list does not flag overt PFAS compounds in publicly available sources, and the brand has marketed some lines as "eco-friendly" or "low-toxicity." Pros: trusted by outdoor and hiking communities, effective on both fabric and leather, and relatively affordable. Con: transparency on the specific water-repellent polymer is sparse, and some Granger's lines do contain PFAS (see the D-grade Repel Plus Eco Refill below).
Fiebing's 4 Way Care Spray: Fiebing's 4 Way Care with Neutral/Neutral Spray carries a C grade (75/100). Fiebing's is a century-old leather care manufacturer. This particular product combines cleaning, conditioning, and waterproofing in one spray, marketed primarily for leather work boots and dress shoes. Brand claims emphasize a "balanced" formulation without naming PFAS explicitly. Our model-based assessment reflects the absence of flagged PFAS indicators in materials reviewed, though the brand does not publish third-party lab certifications. Pros: multipurpose functionality, proven durability on leather, and long shelf life. Con: spray application can be uneven, and the product has a noticeable odor.
Collonil Carbon Pro: Collonil Carbon Pro scores a C grade (75/100). Collonil is a German brand with deep roots in premium shoe care. The Carbon Pro line targets modern synthetic and technical fabrics. Based on available materials, the formulation avoids legacy PFAS in favor of carbon-based or fluorotelomer alternatives—though the latter remain a subject of scientific debate regarding their persistence. Pros: European regulatory compliance, effective on modern sneaker materials, and moderate price. Con: limited availability outside Europe and specialized retailers, and marketing language does not clarify polymer chemistry.
The Middle Ground: Granger's Repel Plus Eco Refill (D Grade)
Granger's Footwear Repel Plus Eco Refill scores a D grade (65/100), indicating moderate concern. Despite Granger's strong C-grade performance on its standard Footwear Cleaner, this refill product shows mixed signals. The "Eco" label suggests lower toxicity, yet available materials hint at the presence of PFAS-type fluorinated compounds, though data is incomplete. The brand does not publicly disclose the specific water-repellent chemistry. Pros: refill format reduces packaging waste, and cost-per-use is competitive. Cons: higher PFAS concern than the parent brand's other products, limited consumer reviews, and unclear which specific fluorinated polymer is used.
The F-Grade Worst Performers: Crep Protect, NikWax, Meltonian, and Others
Crep Protect (all variants): Crep Protect Spray, Crep Protect Starter Pack, and Crep Protect Shoe Protector Spray all carry an F grade (40/100 safety). Crep Protect is a UK-based sneaker-care company that has built rapid market share with influencer partnerships and sleek packaging. However, independent research and material data sources indicate the spray relies on traditional PFAS-based fluorocarbon technology for water repellency. The brand's own website does not disclose detailed chemistry. Pros: excellent marketing, trusted by sneakerheads, and strong hydrophobic performance. Cons: highest PFAS concern in this review, minimal brand transparency, and premium pricing without a lower-concern justification.
NikWax Fabric & Leather Duo-Pack: NikWax Fabric & Leather Duo-Pack scores an F (40/100). NikWax is a well-known outdoor brand, but this product line uses long-chain PFAS compounds for water repellency based on third-party material data and patent filings associated with the formulation. While the brand has not been flagged for false marketing, the chemistry is PFAS-intensive. Pros: widespread retail availability, proven performance, and brand trust in the hiking community. Cons: among the highest PFAS-concern products reviewed, minimal efforts toward PFAS phase-out, and brand silence on safer alternatives.
Meltonian Water & Stain Protector Spray (all variants): Meltonian Lot of 3 (3-pack) and Meltonian 2-pack both earn F grades (45/100 each). Meltonian is owned by a heritage shoe-care conglomerate and markets budget-friendly protectors. Material safety data sheets indicate the presence of PFAS compounds, though the brand does not emphasize this in consumer messaging. The Meltonian Minnetonka Water & Stain Repellent Moccasins (pre-treated footwear) also carries an F grade (45/100). Pros: low cost and long history in the market. Cons: highest PFAS burden in the spray category, and no movement toward reformulation.
Rust-Oleum and Fiebing's Saddle Lac: Rust-Oleum Stops Rust Enamel Spray Paint (F, 50/100) is an industrial enamel, not formulated for footwear, yet some consumers misuse it on shoes. It contains heavy PFAS and solvent loads. Similarly, Fiebing's Saddle Lac (F, 50/100) is a lacquer-based coating with PFAS content; it is intended for saddles and heavy leather goods, not shoes. Both are listed here as cautionary examples.
What to Avoid
- Products with no ingredient disclosure: If a brand does not publish an ingredient list or safety data sheet, assume higher PFAS concern. Transparency is a proxy for reformulation efforts.
- "Military-grade" or industrial sprays on shoes: Rust-Oleum and similar industrial coatings deliver extreme PFAS loading and are not meant for skin contact or indoor use on footwear.
- Budget sprays under $5: Ultra-cheap waterproofing sprays almost always rely on legacy PFAS to achieve low cost. Moderate spending signals reformulation investment.
- Brands claiming "PFAS-free" without lab proof: As of 2024, no major shoe spray brand has published a third-party certified PFAS-free lab report. Claims without evidence should raise a red flag.
- Spraying indoors without ventilation: Even lower-concern sprays aerosolize. Always use outside or in a well-ventilated space to reduce inhalation exposure.
Safer Alternatives and Broader Context
For consumers seeking to minimize PFAS exposure, consider non-spray options: wax-based leather conditioners, silicone creams, and mechanical waterproofing (e.g., beeswax cloth treatments) avoid PFAS entirely. Additionally, explore related categories like rain jackets, waterproof boots, and activewear, many of which carry PFAS-related grading on the PFAS Database finder tool.
Our Pick
Based on available materials and our model-based estimates, Jason Markk Jason Markk Starter Shoe Care Kit represents the best balance of lower concern, usability, and brand consistency. The C grade (75/100 safety) reflects reduced PFAS indicators relative to competitors, though it is not a guarantee of absence of PFAS. The kit format provides multiple care stages, reducing the need to mix products. Jason Markk's athlete-centric marketing has also driven gradual transparency improvements. If budget is a constraint, Granger's Footwear and Gear Cleaner is a solid alternative at the same C grade and lower cost. Avoid F-grade sprays
Now check your own stuff
See every product we’ve graded in this category, safest first.
Get the safe list, free
The products we score each week, and the safest alternative in every category.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.