Tom's of Maine · Dental Floss
Tom's of Maine Dental Floss TS-0153 Oral Care
Lower concern; conventional nylon floss with no known PFAS risk, but Tom's of Maine makes no public PFAS commitment.
Tom's of Maine dental floss is typically nylon-based without nonstick or water-repellent coatings that would require PFAS. No published PFAS-related testing or claims exist for this product. While the material carries lower inherent risk, the brand offers no third-party verification or explicit PFAS-free assurance.
Shop Tom's of Maine on Amazon →Material
Nylon floss; no Teflon-family coating or Teflon-type coating reported
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
Tom's of Maine TS-0153 is nylon dental floss without reported Teflon-type coating or Teflon-family coating. Nylon is a thermoplastic polymer chosen for floss because it is mechanically strong, flexible, and does not leach known toxicants under normal oral use conditions. The absence of Teflon-type coating or wax additives with unknown composition reduces potential exposure to synthetic chemicals during routine flossing, which typically involves brief contact with saliva at mouth temperature.
The brand's record and disclosure
Tom's of Maine markets itself as a natural personal-care brand and holds certifications including Leaping Bunny (cruelty-free) and some products carry USDA Organic labeling, though this specific floss does not. The brand makes no public PFAS commitment or disclosure despite the industry-wide shift toward transparency on fluorinated compounds. No recalls or safety controversies specific to this floss product are on record.
How it compares in its category
Standard nylon floss is the most common formulation in the market and carries a lower chemical hazard profile than waxed varieties (which may contain synthetic wax, dyes, or additives). This product is positioned as a simpler alternative to floss coated with proprietary slip agents or antimicrobials. Compared to silk floss or specialty materials, nylon is more durable and less prone to fraying, though material choice does not materially affect safety.
If you buy it
Use daily as directed; floss is not ingested and contact time is brief, so systemic exposure is negligible. Store in a cool, dry place to prevent moisture absorption in the nylon (which can degrade mechanical properties over time but poses no toxicological risk). Replace the spool when the floss becomes frayed, dulled, or difficult to manipulate. No special precautions are needed beyond standard oral hygiene practice.
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.”
Nylon polymer integrity and degradation
Nylon can absorb moisture and degrade mechanically over extended storage, but this affects performance, not safety. No chemical leaching into the oral cavity is documented or expected under normal use.
Additives in nylon formulation (dyes, slip agents, surfactants)
Tom's of Maine does not disclose specific additive chemistry for this floss. Standard nylon floss typically uses minimal additives; if present, they are not ingested and contact is too brief to pose dermal or systemic risk.
Choking or aspiration hazard
This is a general product-design hazard for floss, not specific to this brand. Adult users are not at material risk; keep out of reach of very young children and pets per standard guidance.
Oral irritation or gum injury
Nylon floss is well-tolerated by oral tissues when used correctly. Individual sensitivity to floss materials is rare and unrelated to chemical composition of this product.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 78% 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.