75/ 100
C
OverallF57/100
Ban Invisible Solid Antiperspirant Deodorant Sweet Simplicity Scent 2.6oz

Ban · Deodorant

Ban Invisible Solid Antiperspirant Deodorant Sweet Simplicity Scent 2.6oz

C · Moderate

Lower PFAS concern; typical solid antiperspirant without waterproofing.

Verdict: BuyStarch-based solid with lower PFAS risk; no established safety alerts; standard formulation safe for routine use.

Ban's solid antiperspirant/deodorant formulation is a starch-based stick with no published waterproof or water-repellent coating, reducing typical PFAS vectors. No brand disclosure on PFAS; no independent testing found.

Shop Ban on Amazon →

Material

Starch-based solid stick antiperspirant/deodorant

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

Why this grade

Category baseline

cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

Hurts the grade

No PFAS disclosure

No public statement about PFAS in this product.

Hurts the grade

Safe base material

Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).

Helps the grade

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Ban Invisible Solid is a starch-based antiperspirant stick, meaning it uses starches (likely corn or tapioca) as the base instead of talc or mineral oils. Starch-based formulas were developed specifically to reduce inhalation and dermal irritation risks associated with talc and powder exposure. The active antiperspirant ingredient is typically aluminum-based (aluminum chlorohydrate or similar), which is industry standard and FDA-regulated; the 'invisible' designation refers to the formula leaving minimal white residue on skin and clothing.

The brand's record and disclosure

Ban (Church & Dwight Co.) does not maintain published PFAS-specific transparency statements but uses standard solid-stick formulations without water-resistant or waterproofing technologies that would typically trigger PFAS use in deodorants. The brand has not faced major safety recalls or complaints related to this product line on public databases. Church & Dwight has faced historical talc litigation (acquired from other brands) but Ban itself has marketed starch-based formulas as a talc-free alternative.

How it compares in its category

Starch-based solid antiperspirants like this one sit in the mainstream middle of the category: safer than talc powders on inhalation risk, but not as extensively tested as clinical-strength formulas or natural alternatives using plant-based actives. PFAS profiles for typical solid sticks without waterproofing claims are generally lower than spray or gel products, which often require emulsifiers and solvents. Ban Invisible lacks third-party certifications (EWG Verified, NSF) that some premium or natural brands pursue, but operates within standard regulatory safety margins.

If you buy it

Apply to clean, dry underarm skin; avoid application immediately after shaving or on broken skin, as aluminum compounds can cause irritation in those contexts. Store in a cool, dry place; do not expose to direct heat above 50C (122F) as the starch-based formula may soften or separate. Replace every 6-12 months or when the stick is nearly depleted to minimize bacterial growth in the container. If you experience skin redness, itching, or rash after use, discontinue and rinse thoroughly; aluminum sensitivity is rare but possible.

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.”

Possible

Aluminum-based antiperspirant (systemic absorption risk)

Aluminum chlorohydrate is FDA-approved as a safe antiperspirant active but is absorbed transdermally at low rates. No causality has been established between antiperspirant use and Alzheimer's or other systemic disease in peer-reviewed epidemiology, but dermal absorption of aluminum is measurable and individual sensitivity varies; those with kidney impairment should consult a physician before regul

Possible

Fragrance allergens (Sweet Simplicity scent)

Ban does not disclose specific fragrance constituents; synthetic fragrance blends typically contain 50-200 chemicals, some of which (limonene, linalool, geraniol) are common allergens and skin sensitizers. Risk is generally low for non-sensitive skin but relevant for those with fragrance contact dermatitis or asthma.

None known

Formaldehyde releasers in preservatives

No public information indicates Ban Invisible Solid contains formaldehyde-releasing preservatives (DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea). Starch-based solids typically use unrelated preservatives, but full ingredient disclosure is not published; this remains unconfirmed.

None known

Microplastic or synthetic polymer shedding

Starch-based formulas do not typically contain microplastics or synthetic polymers; however, some solid deodorants use cyclodextrin or silicone derivatives that could shed particulates. Ban does not publish polymer content data for this product.

Reported

Skin irritation or contact dermatitis from formula additives

Isolated consumer reports on dermatology forums describe itching or mild rash from Ban antiperspirants, consistent with aluminum sensitivity or fragrance reaction rather than systemic toxicity. Incidence is not quantified in published data, but represents a known minor risk in the solid antiperspirant category.

What we don’t know

This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% 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 Deodorant

Tom's of Maine Deodorant

Tom's of Maine

Deodorant

mineral-based, baking soda formulation

A
B
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS3 flags

Lower concern, mineral-based formula with public PFAS-free positioning, though no independent third-party verification.

Risky category by default

Tom's of Maine Most-Loved Deodorant Bundle

Tom's of Maine

Most-Loved Deodorant Bundle

mineral-based and plant-derived actives; stick formulation

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower-concern deodorant; mineral-based formula with PFAS-free claim aligns with brand ethos, but no third-party verification found.

Risky category by default

Tom's of Maine Antiperspirant Deodorant

Tom's of Maine

Antiperspirant Deodorant

mineral-based active ingredients, plant-derived botanicals, no synthetic water-repellent coatings

A
A
PFASAll
A · Very low PFAS2 flags

Lower PFAS concern, mineral-based formula with MADE SAFE cert; antiperspirant category has minimal waterproof-coating risk.

MADE SAFE CertifiedLeaping Bunny (cruelty-free)

Verified PFAS-free by a third party

More deodorant 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.