PFAS75/ 100Excellent
Overall63/ 100Good
Lume Deodorant For Underarms & Private Parts 3oz Tube

Lume · Deodorant

Lume Deodorant For Underarms & Private Parts 3oz Tube

Excellent

Lower PFAS concern for simple cream without water-resistant treatment claims.

Verdict: BuyWater-based cream deodorant with no established safety concerns; lower PFAS risk; brand transparency adequate for category standard.

This Lume cream deodorant lacks water-resistant or stain-resistant properties that would require PFAS chemistry. No PFAS claims or public testing exist for this basic cosmetic formula.

Check price on Amazon →

We flunk more products than we pass. This one earned its grade. How we grade

Material

Water-based cream emulsion in aluminum tube

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

What’s concerning

♾️

No PFAS disclosure

The company has not publicly discussed PFAS in this product.

85/ 100
♾️

Category baseline

cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.

80/ 100
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Many cosmetic creams use preservative systems (imidazolidinyl urea, dmdm hydantoin) that release trace formaldehyde. Lume's full preservative system is not detailed on consumer-facing labels; contact brand for specific agent confirmation if you have formaldehyde sensitivity.

Source: ATSDR
70/ 100
🏷️

Fragrance allergens and undisclosed components

Lume includes fragrance notes (product is scented); fragrance is permitted to be listed as a single ingredient without component breakdown. Potential allergens include linalool, limonene, or other essential oil components not itemized on label.

70/ 100
⚠️

Zinc ricinoleate skin irritation

The primary active ingredient is zinc ricinoleate, a mineral compound. Rare contact dermatitis or sensitization has been reported in cosmetic literature for zinc compounds in very sensitive individuals, though rate is low and brand markets this as gentle.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

Safe base material

Made from ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber with no PFAS risk.

100/ 100

Aluminum tube leaching (minimal risk)

The product is housed in aluminum but the cream is not acidic and contact is brief. No data suggests aluminum migration into this neutral-pH emulsion; tube liner and sealed closure minimize direct contact risk.

95/ 100

Microplastic content

No evidence of intentional microplastic beads or microplastic contamination in Lume cream deodorant formulation; water-based cream format does not typically require microplastics.

95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Lume is a water-based cream emulsion housed in an aluminum tube, formulated without aluminum salts (which block sweat) but instead using zinc ricinoleate and other odor-neutralizing actives. The cream base typically contains emulsifiers, glycerin, and preservatives to maintain stability without relying on aerosol propellants or talc. This material class, simple cosmetic cream, carries lower inherent risk than powders (talc concern) or spray products (inhalation pathways).

The brand's record and disclosure

Lume publishes ingredient lists and has built brand identity around transparency regarding aluminum-free formulation and genital skin safety claims. The company does not prominently advertise PFAS testing or certification (MADE SAFE, EWG Verified), but absence of water-resistant or sweat-lock claims reduces rational PFAS inclusion. No significant recalls, litigation, or substantiated safety controversies on record for this product line.

How it compares in its category

Lume sits in the mid-premium segment: costlier than mass-market stick deodorants (Degree, Old Spice) but comparable in safety profile to other aluminum-free creams (Native, Kopari). Unlike traditional antiperspirants, it does not attempt moisture barrier claims that would justify PFAS. The cream format is gentler on sensitive skin than powder alternatives and avoids spray inhalation risk.

If you buy it

Store in cool, dry conditions to prevent emulsion breakdown or separation; do not expose tube to direct heat or freezing. Replace every 6-12 months or when separation occurs or odor efficacy drops. Test on inner arm first if you have very sensitive skin. Apply thin layer to clean, dry skin; reapply after heavy sweating or as needed for odor control.

What we don’t know

Basis
Model estimate, 72% confidence, not a lab result
Lab test
None on record for this exact product
Brand statement
Lume has made none

Formulations change between production runs, so check the current label. How we grade.

Safer alternatives in Deodorant

Deodorant Cream 2oz Glass

Puracy

Deodorant Cream 2oz Glass

Glass jar; water-based cream formula

PFAS Grade100Excellent
Overall Grade82Excellent
⚠️

Fragrance allergens

Limited concern

70
💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Glass container breakage

Moderate concern

45

Low concern, glass container and water-based cream with PFAS-free commitment.

Bare metal or glass, no coating at all

Tom's of Maine Deodorant

Tom's of Maine

Deodorant

mineral-based, baking soda formulation

PFAS Grade100Excellent
Overall Grade82Excellent
⚠️

Fragrance allergen content

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Baking soda skin irritation

Moderate concern

45
🫧

Microplastic shedding

Limited concern

70

Lower concern from 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

PFAS Grade100Excellent
Overall Grade92Excellent
⚠️

Fragrance allergens

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Skin irritation from mineral salts

Limited concern

70

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

Risky category by default

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.