Listerine · Dental Floss
Johnson & Johnson Listerine Ultraclean Mint Floss
Lower concern; dental floss is not a known PFAS-risk category, but J&J remains silent on composition.
Listerine Ultraclean Mint Floss is nylon monofilament with mint flavoring, materials not typically engineered with PFAS coatings. Dental floss lacks the waterproofing, grease-resistance, or nonstick properties that drive PFAS use in other consumer products.
Shop Listerine on Amazon →Material
Nylon monofilament floss, mint flavoring
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.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
Safe base material
Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Listerine Ultraclean is a nylon monofilament floss with mint flavoring applied to the surface. Nylon is a synthetic polymer that resists saliva and oral bacteria, making it chemically stable during brief daily use in the mouth. The mint flavoring is typically a food-grade or pharmaceutical-grade volatile oil blend; small amounts dissolve on the tongue but do not systemically absorb through gum tissue. The monofilament construction (single strand) reduces fraying and bacterial trapping compared to multifilament alternatives.
The brand's record and disclosure
Johnson & Johnson has faced historical scrutiny over talc and asbestos in powder products, but floss is not part of those controversies. The company does not publicly disclose PFAS composition for dental floss, though this product category is not flagged by EPA or consumer groups as a significant PFAS exposure route. Listerine floss carries no known recalls related to chemical contamination. Standard oral care products from major manufacturers undergo FDA review as medical devices, providing baseline safety oversight.
How it compares in its category
Nylon monofilament is the industry standard for dental floss and carries no established safety disadvantage versus alternatives like Teflon-type coating (Teflon) floss or silk. Teflon-type coating floss has raised PFAS concerns due to its Teflon-family coating chemistry, making nylon a comparatively lower-risk choice. Silk floss biodegrades faster but is not chemically safer. Waxed versus unwaxed nylon floss differs only in surface texture; wax coatings (usually carnauba or synthetic) are inert and safe.
If you buy it
Replace floss when fraying occurs or every 3-6 months with routine daily use; worn fibers lose cleaning efficiency and can splinter. Store in a cool, dry location away from direct heat or sunlight to prevent any degradation of the nylon or flavoring oils. Mint flavoring is safe to swallow in the small amounts present on floss but is not meant for ingestion. If gums bleed during flossing, this is normal gum adaptation and not a sign of chemical irritation; bleeding typically resolves within 1-2 weeks of consistent use.
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.”
Mint flavoring allergen potential
Mint oil and menthol can trigger oral irritation or allergic contact dermatitis in individuals with known mint sensitivity. Risk is low for the general population but those with peppermint allergy should avoid or test on a small gum area first.
Nylon microfiber shedding
Intact nylon monofilament does not shed microplastics during normal flossing. Frayed or torn floss may shed small fibers, but ingestion risk is negligible given floss use duration (seconds per day) and fiber size.
Swallowing floss strands
Accidental swallowing of short floss pieces is not associated with choking or GI harm in adults; nylon passes through the digestive tract intact. Risk to young children or pets is higher; floss should be disposed of safely and kept out of reach.
Formaldehyde resin content
Nylon monofilament does not require formaldehyde-releasing resins for manufacturing or finishing. This hazard applies to textiles and some coatings but not to dental floss polymer chemistry.
Gum tissue abrasion from rough edges
Worn or frayed floss edges can cause micro-abrasions to gum tissue, particularly in users with aggressive flossing technique. This is a mechanical wear issue, not chemical toxicity, and is resolved by replacing floss and using gentle back-and-forth motion.
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 Dental Floss
Cocofloss
Refill Trio
Coconut fiber, based floss with plant-based coating
Lower-concern dental product; natural materials and transparent PFAS stance, but no independent verification.
⚠Risky category by default
Dental Lace
Refillable Silk Dental Floss
Silk floss with compostable refillable packaging
Lower concern; silk floss with credible PFAS-free positioning and third-party certification.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Dental Lace
Plant Based/Vegan Floss Refillable Glass Container PFAS-Free (2 Spools/4-
Plant-based vegan floss (likely plant cellulose or silk fibers)
Lower-concern product with explicit PFAS-free claim; no third-party verification limits certainty.
⚠Risky category by default
More dental floss 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.