PFAS65/ 100Good
Overall39/ 100Poor
Schwarzkopf Osis+ Session Extreme Hold Hairspray

Schwarzkopf · Hair Spray

Schwarzkopf Osis+ Session Extreme Hold Hairspray

Good

Avoid until the brand discloses or independent testing confirms safety; hairsprays historically rely on fluorinated polymers.

Verdict: SkipHairspray with undisclosed PFAS risk and standard aerosol hazards; acceptable with ventilation awareness and brand transparency pressure.

Schwarzkopf offers no public statement on PFAS in this aerosol product. Hairsprays commonly incorporate fluorinated acrylate or Teflon-family coating resins for hold and water resistance.

The safe swap

Bumble and Bumble Thickening Spray

Bumble and bumble

Bumble and Bumble Thickening Spray

75/100 safety

75Excellent

Same rubric that flunked this product. The swap earned Excellent.

Still want this one anyway? Check the price on Amazon. We’d swap it.

Material

Aerosol hairspray (resin/polymer suspension in propellant)

Brand disclosure

Brand is silent on PFAS

Lab data

No public lab test

What’s concerning

♾️

Category baseline

PFAS exposure happens more often with clothing products.

80/ 100
♾️

No PFAS disclosure

The company has not publicly discussed PFAS in this product.

85/ 100
💨

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and propellant inhalation

Butane/isobutane propellants and solvent alcohols in hairsprays are known respiratory irritants with acute inhalation risk during application. No specific testing published for this product, but category-wide concern in aerosol formulations.

20/ 100
🏷️

PFAS

Schwarzkopf does not specify whether the hold-resin is fluorinated (PFAS-containing) or acrylic-based. Teflon-family coating are common in aerosol hairsprays for hold durability; absence of claim to non-fluorinated status suggests potential PFAS presence.

Source: ATSDR
70/ 100
🏷️

Fragrance allergens and undisclosed ingredients

Hairsprays often contain fragrance blends that can trigger contact sensitivity or scalp/respiratory irritation in sensitive individuals. Schwarzkopf does not break down fragrance components on the label, typical of the category.

70/ 100

What’s reassuring

💨

Formaldehyde / VOCs

No independent testing or brand disclosure found linking Osis+ Session to formaldehyde releasers. Aerosol formulations typically use alternative preservatives (phenoxyethanol, parabens) rather than formaldehyde donors.

Source: ATSDR
95/ 100
⛏️

Heavy metals

This is a clear/colorless or light-tinted aerosol; pigment-based heavy metals (lead, cadmium in dyes) are not a typical concern for colorless hairsprays. No recalls or testing flagged this hazard.

Source: FDA
95/ 100

The full breakdown

What it's made of and why it matters

Osis+ Session is a polymer-resin aerosol suspension (typical for hold hairsprays) propelled by butane/isobutane mix. The resin binder creates the hold effect but is typically a Teflon-family coating or acrylic-based film former; Schwarzkopf does not publicly specify which, raising PFAS uncertainty. Aerosol propellants themselves are not toxic at use distances, but the polymer matrix and any volatile co-solvents (alcohols, water) are the primary inhalation concern during application.

The brand's record and disclosure

Schwarzkopf (Henkel subsidiary) maintains minimal public disclosure on PFAS content in hair-care products and has not signed transparency pledges common among competitors (e.g., ZDHC Gateway, Cradle to Cradle). The brand has no recent recalls or safety controversies tied to this specific product, but absence of disclosure is itself a red flag in a category where fluorinated polymers remain industry standard. Parent company Henkel has faced PFAS scrutiny in industrial contexts but has not proactively addressed cosmetic/personal-care PFAS.

How it compares in its category

Aerosol hairsprays occupy a higher-risk position than pump-spray or gel alternatives because inhalation exposure is harder to control. Osis+ Session is mid-market priced; competitors like Tresemme or drugstore aerosols face identical PFAS uncertainty, while premium brands (e.g., Bumble and bumble, some salon brands) occasionally disclose non-fluorinated polymers. No hairspray aerosol in this segment has definitively claimed PFAS-free status with third-party backing.

If you buy it

Use in well-ventilated spaces (bathroom exhaust on, window open) to minimize polymer and propellant inhalation. Apply at arm's length (8-12 inches from scalp) in short bursts rather than continuous spraying; do not inhale during or immediately after application. Replace every 6-12 months or when spray pattern weakens (sign of propellant loss or clog). Consider switching to pump-spray or gel hold products if concerned about aerosol inhalation exposure; contact Schwarzkopf directly to request PFAS disclosure or testing results.

What we don’t know

Basis
Model estimate, 35% confidence, not a lab result
Lab test
None on record for this exact product
Brand statement
Schwarzkopf has made none

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

Safer alternatives in Hair Spray

Moroccanoil Treatment Mist

Moroccanoil

Treatment Mist

argan oil, silicones, water-based spray emulsion

PFAS Grade75Excellent
Overall Grade53Good
🏷️

Fragrance allergens / undisclosed fragrance components

Limited concern

70

Silicone buildup on hair over time

Moderate concern

45
💨

Inhalation exposure from spray format

Limited concern

70
🧼

Preservative sensitivity (paraben or alt. preservative not itemized)

Limited concern

70

Low concern for PFAS; oil-based cosmetic spray contains no obvious fluorinated additives.

Risky category by default

Bumble and Bumble Thickening Spray

Bumble and bumble

Thickening Spray

spray formulation (polymers, propellant, solvents)

PFAS Grade75Excellent
Overall Grade63Good
⚠️

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from solvents

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Fragrance allergens and sensitizers

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Propellant-related respiratory irritation

Limited concern

70

Low concern; spray styling product shows no known PFAS triggers, though chemical composition remains undisclosed.

Risky category by default

Wella EIMI Ocean Spritz

Wella

EIMI Ocean Spritz

Water-based spray propellant with conditioning polymers

PFAS Grade75Excellent
Overall Grade63Good
💨

Inhalation of aerosolized propellant and polymers

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Fragrance allergens and contact sensitization

Limited concern

70
⚠️

Polymer film buildup and scalp irritation with overuse

Limited concern

70

Lower concern for typical spray cosmetic, but Wella discloses nothing about PFAS.

Risky category by default

More hair spray 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.