Abstract

Two chrome side leathers were waterproofed in various ways and subse quently had two wetting agents (Corilene DG and Teepol) padded on to their grain surfaces in various amounts. The dried and conditioned leathers were tested in various ways for waterproofness. No real evidence was found in any of these tests of a reduction of waterproofness, although the amount of wetting agent added was as high as 16; any loss of waterproofness was certainly slight. The practice of some shoe factories that use wetting agents in conjunction with water for mulling may involve a risk of destroying the waterproofness of their upper leathers, but with some leathers and wetting agents it does no apparent harm.