Black Radiance Eye Appeal Lid Glitz

Propanediol is not likely to cause sensitivity and considered safe to use. It is derived from corn or petroleum with a clear color and no scent.

One manufacturer claims this ingredient to have a pH range of 2-8 and to be biodegradable.

This ingredient is also known as Sepimax Zen.

Chlorphenesin is soluble in both water and glycerin.

Studies show Chlorphenesin is easily absorbed by our skin. You should speak with a skincare professional if you have concerns about using Chlorphenesin.

It is also used to make a product more thick.

Caprylhydroxamic Acid is often used with natural antimicrobial products as an alternative to preservatives.

Due to its large molecule size, it doesn't penetrate beyond the skin's surface.

This ingredient has a solid regulatory track record; the CIR Expert Panel first concluded it was safe for use in cosmetics at concentrations up to 100% in 1997. A 2012 reassessment reaffirmed that finding. Safety studies have also found no irritation or evidence of toxicity.

A 2019 study did find this ingredient to grow Malassezia, so this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

According to a manufacturer, it also offer some moisturizing effects.

Your skin has a natural pH and acid mantle. This acid mantle helps prevent harmful bacteria from breaking through. The acid mantle also helps keep your skin hydrated.

"Alkaline" refers to a high pH level. A low pH level would be considered acidic.

There are a very small number of reported cases of contact dermatitis in cases linked to wound-care creams used over compromised skin (rather than skincare).

Overall, this is a well-studied and low-risk preservative just doing its job.

Typical concentrations run up to 0.6%, which is also the maximum amount permitted under both EU CosIng regulations and US FDA guidelines.

It is typically used at very low levels in cosmetics, with most formulations using 0.0125% or less (well below its approved maximum).

In the EU, IPBC concentration limits are set at 0.02% in rinse-off products and 0.01% in leave-on products.

Though IPBC is a relatively uncommon contact allergen, patch testing studies show positive reaction rates ranging from 0.3%-0.9% of patients tested. This is still quite low compared to preservatives like methylisothiazolinone which sits at around 4-5%.

Researchers note that existing iodine sensitives or rubber allergies may be the cause of this as IPBC shares a structure with both thiuram (used in rubber) and iodine.

Be sure to patch test if you are unsure and speak with a medical professional about using this ingredient.

On the safety side, it's well-studied and has a solid track record. Human repeat-insult patch testing showed no skin irritation or sensitization even at 100%.

Typical use levels are pretty tiny, usually less than 1%.

You might see some fear-mongering around this ingredient:

Studies in male rats showed kidney effects but that's because of a rat-specific protein that humans don't make. So this study isn't really relevant to humans.

Though it's not a typical fragrance like parfum, it does have a natural scent. That's why the official COSIng database lists it as 'perfuming' ingredient. It can be used to modify the scent of a formula.

This ingredient is often coated with metal oxides like titanium dioxide. Trace amounts of heavy metals may be found in mica, but these metals are not harmful in our personal products.

Mica has been used since prehistoric times throughout the world. Ancient Egyptian, Indian, Greek, Roman, Aztec, and Chinese civilizations have used mica.

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.

In the US, this ingredient can only be used if it meets strict FDA specifications. Certain versions even require batch-by-batch certification after extensive safety evaluation.

In the European Union, this ingredient is permitted as a colorant and classified as a "nanomaterial" based on its particle size (meaning it requires deeper assessment).

The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has reviewed nano-sized carbon black specifically and concluded that it does not pose a risk to human health when used in cosmetic products applied to healthy, intact skin and formulated to avoid inhalation.

Studies support this regulatory stance. Laboratory studies on nano-carbon black show potential for cytotoxicity and inflammatory effects in immune cells; it is important to highlight these findings are based on in vitro (not done on a living organism) testing or inhalation scenarios rather than normal topical cosmetic use.

Occupational studies involving industrial workers exposed to airborne carbon black have not shown a clear link between cumulative exposure and cancer risk. These findings are not directly applicable to cosmetics; cosmetic formulations bind pigments within creams, gels, and liquids that are not inhaled.

Overall, evidence shows that this ingredient is safe under regulatory guidelines and purity standards, especially when formulated to avoid airborne exposure.

Even with regulatory approval and a long history of use, some consumers might prefer to avoid ingredients that are petroleum-derived or that fall under the “nanomaterial” category.

Choosing whether to use CI 77266 isn’t necessarily about safety alone; it can also be about personal philosophy, comfort level with synthetic versus natural ingredients, and how much weight you place on ongoing research and regulatory oversight.

Makeup is highly individual, and personal preference plays an important role in deciding what feels right for you.