AOA Skin Paw Paw Sponge Cleaning Soap

Safety-wise, the CIR Expert Panel has concluded it to be safe in cosmetics when formulated to be non-irritating and non-sensitizing.

Free stearic acid is a C18 fatty acid that the Malassezia yeast can substrate, so this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

Sucrose is hydrophilic, meaning it attracts water. This makes it an effective humectant and helps hydrate the skin.

Studies show sugars may worsen acne-prone skin due to it disrupting the skin's natural biome. We recommend speaking with a professional if you have any concerns.

In some products such as body scrubs, sucrose is used as an gentle exfoliant.

The term 'sucrose' comes from the french word for sugar, 'sucre'.

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.

Lab studies have found that lauric acid is surprisingly good at killing acne-causing bacteria. However, these tests were done on bacteria in a petri dish and not on real skin, so we can't say for certain it works the same in a formulation on a real face.

The comedogenic rating of 4 comes from the 1972 rabbit ear model using undiluted ingredients. Comedogenicity is highly individual and one comedogenic ingredient cannot predict how a formula will behave on skin.

This ingredient is not fungal acne safe and research has confirmed Malassezia can use it as a food source.

Sodium Laureth Sulfate is a type of sulfate. It can be drying. We recommend speaking with a professional about using this ingredient if you have concerns.

The CIR Expert Panel has confirmed this ingredient to be nontoxic and clinical studies show no sensitization at cosmetic use concentrations.

True allergic reactions are quite rare: a 15-year retrospective study of 6,751 patients found only 0.31% had a positive reaction (and less than half were considered clinically relevant).

It seemed that when sensitization does occur, it's most commonly linked to topical medication (like corticosteroids) and not cosmetics. Allergic contact dermatitis also appears largely limited to individuals with underlying skin conditions.

Overall, propylene glycol is a well-studied ingredient that most people can tolerate without issue.

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.

Two clinical studies in postmenopausal women found that applying argan oil for 60 days significantly improved skin elasticity and moisturization (reduced transepidermal water loss and increased epidermal water content).

Since it is high in oleic and linoleic acid, this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe. Both of these fall in the C11-C24 range that Malassezia yeast can metabolize.

It plays several roles in a formula:

Typical use levels for this ingredient sit around 1-10% and the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel has affirmed safety at concentrations up to 25% in leave-on products.

Multiple assessments have found it to be non-irritating and non-sensitizing to most people.

However, there have been some cases of allergic contact dermatitis in patients with chronically compromised skin barriers.

Cetearyl alcohol has a comedogenic rating of 2 and irritancy rating of 1. Both of these numbers come from the 1989 study that used rabbit ears; a "2" means mildly comedogenic and a "1" means low irritancy.

Here's the catch: rabbit skin is more sensitive than human skin and throws a lot of false positives. A 1996 reappraisal found that ingredients rated 1-2 in the rabbit ear tests are generally safe for humans.

Remember comedogenic ratings are unable to assess the entire formula of a product or how it will react on your skin. Just be sure to patch test if you are unsure about certain ingredients.

This ingredient is not fungal acne safe. Cetearyl alcohol is a fatty alcohol with chain lengths that fall within the range that Malassezia can metabolize.

A 2019 study has also observed Malassezia growth in the presence of this ingredient, confirming it to be not-fungal acne safe.

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.

The FDA requires batch-to-batch certification for this ingredient that is held to a pretty rigorous standard. That means the CI 17200 in your cosmetics has been tested and approved before it ever reaches you.

Contact allergy to cosmetic-grade dyes used at low concentrations are uncommon but has been documented before.

This ingredient also goes by the name D&C RED NO. 33.

CI 17200 has a comedogenic rating of 1 and an irritancy rating of 2 on a scale of 0-5. This is based on peer-reviewed research from the man who invented the comedogenic scale.

A 1 on the comedogenic scale is about as low as it gets without being a flat zero, and makes sense for CI 17200.

It's a water-soluble dye used at very small concentrations (typically 0.001-0.1%), so it dissolves into the water phase of a formula rather than sitting on your skin the way an oil or wax would.

The irritancy rating of 2 reflects that, like most synthetic dyes, there's a small possibility of mild irritation ( particularly for people with existing dye sensitivities).

For the vast majority of people, it's a non-issue at typical use levels.

It's also worth keeping in mind that comedogenic and irritancy ratings are tested on individual ingredients, not finished formulas. The final product's formulation, concentration, and other ingredients all play a role in how something actually behaves on your skin.

Just so you know, the FDA ban on Red Dye No. 3 refers to CI 45430, not this ingredient. CI 45430 and CI 17200 are different chemical compounds with distinct safety and regulatory histories.

It's also worth noting that Red No. 3 (CI 45430) was already banned from cosmetics back in 1990, so the 2025 action just extended the ban to food and oral drugs. CI 17200 was never part of any of this.

Some people may experience allergies from this dye, especially asthmatics and those with an aspirin intolerance.