Miguhara Moon Cushion SPF 50+ PA+++ Versus Pixi Beauty Beauty Balm

Besides holding formulas together, it also leaves a silky and lightweight feel on skin without the greasiness. A manufacturer also claims it can help with the controlled release of active ingredients.

The CIR Expert Panel found this ingredient to not be sensitizing in concentrations up to 15% in human maximazation testing and dimethicone-based compounds were not comedogenic.

It has a high molecular weight well above 1,000 g/mol which means it limits meaningful skin penetration.

A 2019 study specifically tested this ingredient and found no observable Malassezia growth in its presence.

Synthetically created CI 77492 is considered safer than those naturally found. This is because the synthetically created version may contain less impurities. Iron oxides are generally non-toxic and non-allergenic.

The safety profile of this ingredient is reassuring; the US CIR Expert Panel concluded D5 is safe as used in cosmetics and Health Canada concluded that D5 is not harmful to human health or the environment as currently used in cosmetics

There's a study that people mention about D5 in a rat study showing tumors. This study is related to long-term inhalation of high D5 levels.

Regulatory bodies have judged this study to be not applicable in topical skincare since skin absorption of D5 is very low and we're not really inhaling huge amounts of D5.

The only restriction for this ingredient is environmental. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) restricted D5 in wash-off cosmetics at or above 0.1% due to their persistence in water.

Human patch tests with a facial lotion containing 1% of this ingredient found no sensitization.

In formulas, it's always paired with a separate UVA filter because octinoxate solely protects skin from UVB.

Because it's an oil-soluble liquid, it's easy to blend into the oil phase of lotions/creams and gives a cosmetically elegant feel.

The one quirk about formulating this ingredient is photostability; the molecule slowly changes shape into a less effective version when sunlight hits it. So the longer you're in the sun, the weaker its protection gets. The drop can be more than 30% in some formulas.

It also doesn't play nice with Avobenzone (the common UVA filter) since avobenzone destabilizes octinoxate and the two degrade each other. But don't worry: brands have solved this issue by adding photostabilizers like Tinosorb S to prevent degradation and keep SPF stable under heavy UV exposure.

The maximum allowed level is 10% in the EU and Australia, 7.5% in the US and Canada, and 20% in Japan.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel has concluded this ingredient to be safe in cosmetics up to 10%.

One last thing worth knowing for context:

Octinoxate has been the subject of ongoing review in Europe where the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety's (SCCS) 2025 final opinion is that this ingredient is an endocrine-active substance.

Lab and animal studies suggest it can act a bit like a hormone in the body (mildly mimicking estrogen and slightly blocking male hormones). It's important to know this hasn't really been shown to happen in everyday human use.

This ingredient is also banned in Hawaii over coral reef concerns.

Your skin makes glycerin on its own (mostly from sebaceous oil breakdown) and shuttles it to your outermost layer of skin, or your epidermis, via aquaporin-3.

Aquaporin-3 is a transporter that is essential for normal skin hydration, elasticity, and repair. Interestingly, mice lacking in AQP3 have dry and less elastic skin that can be fully corrected with glycerin.

This ingredient is non-irritating, plays well with almost every ingredient, and works across all skin types. Typical use is anywhere between 3-10% but can go up to 79% in some leave-on products.

Just know very high concentrations (>40%) can feel tacky in low humidity.

Glycerin is the name for this ingredient in American English. British English uses Glycerol/Glycerine.

For instance, Habanolide is a proprietary trade name for a specific aroma chemical. When used as a fragrance ingredient in cosmetics, most aroma chemicals fall under the broad labeling category of “FRAGRANCE” or “PARFUM” according to EU and US regulations.

The term 'parfum' or 'fragrance' is not regulated in many countries. In many cases, it is up to the brand to define this term.

For instance, many brands choose to label themselves as "fragrance-free" because they are not using synthetic fragrances. However, their products may still contain ingredients such as essential oils that are considered a fragrance by INCI standards.

One example is Calendula flower extract. Calendula is an essential oil that still imparts a scent or 'fragrance'.

Depending on the blend, the ingredients in the mixture can cause allergies and sensitivities on the skin. Some ingredients that are known EU allergens include linalool and citronellol.

Parfum can also be used to mask or cover an unpleasant scent.

The bottom line is: not all fragrances/parfum/ingredients are created equally. If you are worried about fragrances, we recommend taking a closer look at an ingredient. And of course, we always recommend speaking with a professional.

You might see people debate whether Sodium Chloride is comedogenic, but there actually haven't been any comedogenic tests done on it. Either way, the overall formulation of a product matters a lot more than any single ingredient.

You might see this ingredient used in scrubs as a primary exfoliating ingredient.

Interestingly, the size of the molecule affects its behavior:

Some clinical evidence links low molecular weight versions to improved wrinkle depth, elasticity, anti-inflammatory effects, and barrier repair.

Many serums use a blend of both weights so you can get surface hydration plus longer-lasting and deeper effects.

You'll typically see concentrations between 0.1-2% for this ingredient.

A really common myth is that mineral filters work by reflecting UV light off your skin like tiny mirrors.

They don't only do that; modern research shows TD protects mostly by absorbing UV radiation, the same way chemical filters do.

When researchers measured this, reflection accounted for only about 4-5% of the protection (and less than SPF 2 on its own). The other ~95% comes from absorption: the UV photons hit the particle and their energy gets soaked up by its semiconductor band gap rather than bouncing off.

So "reflects vs. absorbs" was never really the right way to split mineral from chemical filters.

TD gives broad-spectrum protection that's strongest in the UVB and UVA-2 range and weaker in the UVA-1 range. Its UVA protection isn't quite as strong as Zinc Oxide's which is why you'll often see the two paired together.

Together, they make a solid broad-spectrum system.

TD is a great pick for sensitive, acne-prone, or redness-prone skin because it's non-irritating and chemically inert. Regulatory reviews classify it as a non-sensitizer and mild-to-non-irritant.

It's also unlikely to cause the "eye sting" some chemical filters are known for.

The main trade-off is cosmetic; TD can leave a white cast and has a thicker texture. This is why mineral sunscreens are often less cosmetically elegant than chemical or hybrid formulas (and harder to shade-match on deeper skin tones).

Formulators often use micronized or nano-sized TD to cut down on white case and improve spreadability. Smaller particles scatter less visible light so the formula looks less chalky while still filtering UV.

TD is almost always bundled with coatings like Alumina, Silica, Stearic Acid, or Dimethicone. These coatings do two important jobs:

TD can be used at up to 25% in a finished sunscreen; this is the regulatory ceiling in both the US and the EU.

In practice, the amount in any given product varies a lot depending on the target SPF and whether it's paired with other UV filters.

TD is one of the most heavily vetted sunscreen ingredients out there. It is approved as a UV filter in all major markets worldwide, including the US, EU, UK, Japan, Korea, China, Australia, and Canada.

The safety evidence is solid. There was an old worry that nano particles might absorb through skin into the body but multiple studies (including on damaged, sunburned, and UV-irradiated skin) have shown that TD stays on the surface and the layer of dead skin cells on top of everything else.

There's also no evidence of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or reproductive toxicity from dermal exposure of this ingredient.

For those who have seen the headline about a 2022 EU ban on TD, that was on TD as a food additive (a complete separate use from topical sunscreen).

There are ongoing questions about how nano-TD might affect marine ecosystems. As of now, there has been no conclusive evidence that any form of TD (or any other sunscreen filter) harms coral reefs or marine life.

The science is still developing and it's a space worth watching rather than packing over.

However, several destinations have reef-safety sunscreen rules that restrict certain chemical filters and steer visitors toward mineral, non-nano options. If you're traveling somewhere with these rules, a non-nano mineral sunscreen is the safe bet.

You'll also recognize water as that liquid we all need to stay alive. If you see this, drink a glass of water. Remember to stay hydrated!

A 2021 paper looked at skincare formulations containing iron oxides and found that they reduced transmission of blue light when measured optically. In simple terms, the pigment particles helped block or scatter part of the visible light spectrum in lab testing and the authors suggest this could translate into better protection against blue-light-related skin effects.

There is also clinical and experimental research showing that tinted products containing iron oxides can reduce visible light-induced pigmentation:

Please note, whether a product reduces visible or blue light depends on things like:

In the EU's CosIng database, iron oxides are only listed as a colorant. CosIng groups ingredients by their main cosmetic role, such as colorant, preservative, or UV filter.

Though studies say iron oxides can "attenuate blue light", they're describing an optical property and not an officially recognized cosmetic function.

So CosIng isn’t contradicting the research. It’s just classifying iron oxides by what they officially are: pigments that add color.