ZO Skin Health Peptide Facial Refining Concentrate Versus SkinCeuticals P-Tiox Wrinkle Modulating Peptide Serum

The comparison to Botox does have limits because the molecule is water-loving and relatively large.

Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 has a hard time absorbing deeply enough through the skin's outer barrier to actually reach the muscles.

So whether it truly works the way Botox does at a biological level is still up for debate, but early clinical outcomes are fairly encouraging.

A 12 week human study of a multi-ingredient regimen containing this ingredient saw:

While some studies have observed improvements in wrinkle appearance, it is important to note that more consistent results are seen in multi-ingredient formulations (vs just Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 alone).

Some research studies also used higher concentrations (up to 10%) while this ingredient is usually found in concentrations up to 0.005% in leave-on formulations.

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.

Any antioxidant and soothing claims mostly come from those polysaccharides; crude laminarin and fucoidan from Laminaria digitata do show antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity in lab assays.

Just know that the lab assays are test-tube work on isolated compounds and not clinical trials on the finished extract.

Realistically, this ingredient is a nice-feeling and hydrating skin conditioner (not really an active).

Safety-wise, it's one of the better documented seaweeds and safe to be used in cosmetics according to the CIR Expert Panel.

Industry surveys find that usage concentrations run can be found up to 5% in bubble baths and leave-on usage is more likely 0.1-3%.

The risk of allergy is also quite low as human repeat insult patch tests (under 5% and blends containing 8-12%) came back non-irritating and non-sensitizing. Rabbit studies came back negative too, though one trade mixture at 1.5-2.5% in water + propylene glycol did cause moderate irritation at 30 minutes.

Reported seaweed allergies in the literature are almost all occupational (people handling wet kelp) or from a totally unrelated blue/green alga.

You'll see seaweed listed as a 5/5 on a lot of pore-clogging charts and that number doesn't come from anywhere; it's not in the original rabbit-ear studies that most comedogenic ratings trace back to.

The reasoning behind the reputation is that seaweed is high in iodine and iodine can trigger acne-like breakouts when eaten. This traces back to a 1976 letter in Archives of Dermatology describing two women whose breakouts cleared after they stopped taking high-dose kelp supplements orally.

And the reaction of these two women wasn't clogged pores at all: it was an iodine-triggered pustular rash. Later research found normal dietary iodine doesn't meaningfully affect acne either and nobody has shown topical algae delivers enough iodine to matter.

What we do have is dozens of brown and red algae ingredients found to be non-irritating and non-sensitizing, and a handful of studies that found algae compounds may actually help acne.

However, plenty of people do report breaking out from algae-containing products. Skin is individual and it's worth avoiding if yours has reacted to algae before.

The 0-5 scale comes from applying ingredients to the inside of an albino rabbit's ear. Rabbit follicles are far more reactive than human ones so it over-predicts. Even petrolatum was reassigned as non-comedogenic by the original scientist, Kligman.

Here are three more problems of comedogenic ratings: