Laminaria Digitata Extract

Laminaria Digitata Extract comes from the big brown seaweed (or kelp) that grows in the North Atlantic. In skincare, it's mostly used as a skin protectant and conditioning agent.

The most interesting stuff inside is mostly just sugars and minerals: fucoidan (a sulfated polysaccharide), laminarin (a beta-glucan), alginates, and phlorotannins (seaweed polyphenols).

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.

Can Laminaria Digitata Extract clog pores?

At this time, there's actually no published comedogenicity test on it and the evidence that does exist points away from clogging.

Laminaria Digitata Extract has never been run through the rabbit ear assay or the Mills & Kligman human model and it isn't in Fulton's 1989 list of tested comedogenic ratings.

The CIR's brown algae review pulled every published and unpublished study industry had on 82 seaweed ingredients and found no comedogenicity data for any of them.

So any number you see online was assigned by a person and not actually measured.

In 2012, Capitanio et al. ran an 8-week double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial in 60 people with mild acne using a Laminaria digitata-derived oligosaccharide complexed with 0.1% zinc pyrrolidone.

They found comedones, papules and pustules dropped significantly more in the active group than the vehicle group at 2, 4 and 8 weeks.

Caveats for this study: a Laminaria digitata-derived oligosaccharide is just fraction and not the plain extract, and the zinc is likely doing real work. Still, the study found comedones went down in acne-prone skin.

This fits mechanistically. Comedogenesis is largely a lipid story and this is water-soluble polysaccharides, minerals, and polyphenols. There's nothing really to plug a follicle with.

The real caveat is the carrier: some supplier versions come dispersed in caprylic/capric triglycerides.

Why comedogenic ratings don't tell the whole story

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:

1. Ratings are generated at or near 100%. This ingredient is used at 0.1-5%.
2. Single ingredients don't predict finished products. Draelos and DiNardo found that finished cosmetics containing ingredients recognized as comedogenic were not necessarily comedogenic themselves. Vehicle, pH, and everything else in the bottle change the result.
3. There's no standardization or regulation for "comedogenicity". Different labs give the same ingredient different numbers and "non-comedogenic" isn't a regulated claim anywhere.