Easton · Sports Equipment Padding
Easton Stealth RS II Hockey Shoulder Pads
Unknown moisture treatment; no PFAS disclosure from Easton.
Hockey pads likely have water-repellent coating or moisture-resistant coatings, which often contain PFAS, but Easton provides no material transparency. No independent testing available for this specific product.
Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.
Material
Foam, mesh, nylon with moisture-resistant/waterproof coating
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Waterproof / stain-resistant treatment
water-repellent coating treatments have historically used PFAS.
Category baseline
clothing is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Easton Stealth RS II shoulder pads use closed-cell foam (likely polyethylene or EVA) as the impact-absorbing core, wrapped in nylon mesh facing with a moisture-resistant or waterproof outer coating. The mesh allows ventilation and sweat management, reducing skin irritation and fungal growth risk compared to fully sealed designs. The critical unknown is the chemistry of that water-resistant treatment: it may contain PFAS (fluorochemical repellents), silicone-based hydrophobes, or non-fluorinated alternatives, but Easton has not disclosed which.
The brand's record and disclosure
Easton (owned by Clarus Corporation) does not publicly disclose PFAS use, chemical composition, or compliance with OEKO-TEX or similar textile safety standards for its protective gear. The brand has no known major safety recalls specific to shoulder pads toxicology. Easton markets products for youth and professional athletes but remains silent on flame retardants, dye chemistry, and coating treatments, which is a significant transparency gap for a worn-against-skin product.
How it compares in its category
Most hockey shoulder pads in this performance tier (mid-to-premium) use similar foam-nylon-coated construction; Easton Stealth is standard, not outlier. Alternatives like Bauer, CCM, and TRUE also do not voluntarily disclose PFAS or detailed coating chemistry, making this category-wide a concern. Premium eco-focused brands (e.g., HEXON) are rarer and often cost 30-50% more. On durability and impact protection, Easton Stealth RS II is well-regarded with no known structural safety issues.
If you buy it
Wash in cool water with mild detergent after heavy use to reduce microbial buildup in foam and extend coating life; avoid machine drying and direct heat. Replace straps or padding if foam flattens (typically 2-3 years of regular play) or if coating cracks, which can expose foam and reduce impact protection. Avoid prolonged chlorine or salt exposure (pool/beach hockey), as this degrades nylon and coating faster. Store in a well-ventilated space to prevent odor and mildew in the foam.
Beyond PFAS: other things we checked
Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”
PFAS in moisture-resistant coating
Waterproof/moisture-resistant finish is likely a fluorochemical or unknown hydrophobe; Easton has not disclosed. PFAS fluorinated coatings are common in water-repellent apparel but not mandatory in hockey gear, so non-PFAS alternatives exist.
Formaldehyde in nylon or adhesive binders
Nylon fabric itself does not require formaldehyde; adhesives joining foam to mesh could contain formaldehyde releasers. No recalls or tests found for Stealth RS II. Risk is low if ventilated.
Azo dyes or heavy metals in fabric coloring
Easton Stealth RS II uses standard synthetic dyes on polyester/nylon mesh. No public testing or restricted substance flags recorded for this model. Risk is typical for mass-produced athletic wear.
Antimony in nylon polyester
If nylon mesh contains polyester (common in blends), antimony trioxide may be present as a catalyst residue in trace amounts. Easton does not disclose fiber composition percentages. Skin contact risk is very low for residual antimony.
Foam degradation and microparticle shedding
Closed-cell foam (EVA or PE) breaks down under UV and repeated compression over 2-3 years, shedding tiny particles into sweat and skin. This is normal wear, not a manufacturing defect, but replaced pads should be managed as plastic waste.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 35% confidence. It is not a lab result.
No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.
The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.
Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.
Safer alternatives in Sports Equipment Padding
Easton
Universal Padding Fit Kit
foam padding, elastic straps
Low risk product, but brand discloses nothing on PFAS.
⚠Risky category by default
Easton
Pro Style Shock Absorbing Pad
Foam padding, likely EVA or polyurethane
Lower concern; foam padding unlikely PFAS source, but no disclosure confirmed.
⚠Risky category by default
MacGregor
Shock Absorbing Base
foam or elastomer cushioning in shoe base
Unknown material composition.
⚠Risky category by default
More sports equipment padding grades
How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.