Black Radiance True Complexion Shine Control Primer

Dimethicone comes in different viscosities:

Depending on the viscosity, dimethicone has different properties.

Ingredients lists don't always show which type is used, so we recommend reaching out to the brand if you have questions about the viscosity.

This ingredient is unlikely to cause irritation because it does not get absorbed into skin. However, people with silicone allergies should be careful about using this ingredient.

Note: Dimethicone may contribute to pilling. This is because it is not oil or water soluble, so pilling may occur when layered with products. When mixed with heavy oils in a formula, the outcome is also quite greasy.

Most kaolin is a white color, but may be pink/orange/red depending on where it comes from.

The name 'kaolin' comes from a Chinese village named 'Gaoling'. Kaolin clay comes from rocks rich in kaolinite. Kaolinite, the mineral, has a silicate layered structure. Kaolinite is formed from chemical weathering of aluminum siilicate minerals.

Besides skincare, kaolin is commonly used to make glossy paper, in ceramics, toothpaste, and as medicine to soothe stomach issues.

As an emollient, it helps trap moisture in the skin. It is considered an occlusive.

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.

This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe because behenic acid falls into the chain-length range that Malassezia yeasts can feed on.

In practice, that translates to a long shelf life and a consistently elegant skin feel.

While there is an assumption Caprylic Triglyceride can clog pores due to it being derived from coconut oil, there is no research supporting this. Just patch test if you have concerns.

Fractionated coconut oil and MCT Oil are both listed as Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride according to INCI. This is because INCI names are based on the ingredient’s final chemical composition and not its marketing name or source.

This ingredient is treated as the gold standard fungal acne safe oil. Even though it is coconut derived, the problematic lauric acid is stripped out.

This leaves just caprylic (C8) and capric (C10) acid. These chain lengths actually trend antifungal; a 2020 study found caprylic acid was enough to disrupt Malassezia furfur cell membrane, with a caprylic acid derivative damaging membrane structures at concentrations as low as 0.2%.

This ingredient is typically used in concentrations between 1-10%. Studies have found it to be non-sensitizing, non-phototoxic, and non-photoallergenic.

A close cousin of this ingredient is Glyceryl Stearate SE ("self-emulsifying"). This just has a small amount of sodium or potassium stearate added so it can emulsify without a co-emulsifier.

Since this ingredient is an ester of a C18 fatty acid, it may not be fungal acne safe. The Malassezia yeast can potentially metabolize within the C11-C24 range.

Fun fact: The human body also creates Glyceryl Stearate naturally.

As an emollient, it can help the skin feel soft and hydrated. It is also used to reduce frizz in hair products.

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.

Isododecane's role as a solvent makes it a great texture enhancer. It spreads smoothly on skin and does not leave a sticky feeling behind. Isododecane also helps prevent color transfer in makeup products.

Isododecane is not absorbed into skin.

The chemical name for this ingredient is 2,2,4,6,6-PENTAMETHYLHEPTANE.

The unique structure of silica enhances the spreadability and adds smoothness, making it a great texture enhancer.

It is also used as an active carrier, emulsifier, and mattifier due to its ability to absorb excess oil.

In some products, tiny microneedles called spicules are made from silica or hydrolyzed sponge. When you rub them in, they lightly polish away dead skin layers and enhance the penetration of active ingredients.

Interestingly, topically applied Palmitic Acid can be elongated into longer chain fatty acids and ceramides. A 2019 study found low levels of Palmitic Acid lead to slower development of cells, suggesting it plays a role in keeping your skin's renewal process on track.

The CIR (Cosmetic Ingredient Review) panel determined it safe as used in cosmetics at concentrations up to 13%. It is non-irritating and non-sensitizing in clinical studies.

The culprit behind fungal acne, the Malassezia yeast, feeds on fatty acids with carbon chain lengths between C11-C24. Palmitic Acid, at C16, falls right into that sweet spot.

In vitro studies have shown that Palmitic Acid is one of the fatty acids that induce rapid Malassezia growth in lab settings.

It's worth noting that what feeds yeast in a lab doesn't necessarily feed it on your face since formulation and your skin's chemistry play a bigger role.

PH adjusters are common in cosmetic products. The pH of a product can affect the effectiveness of other ingredients. A product with a high pH may also irritate the skin.

If you are looking for the tea leaf ingredient, click here.

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.

This ingredient is considered a modified starch. Starch can also be found naturally in plants.

One study from 1991 found that 5% of this ingredient enhanced titanium dioxide SPF by as much as 40%. The study found 1% titanium dioxide had a 5.6 SPF and adding 5% of aluminum starch octenylsuccinate boosted it to an SPF of 8.1

Although “aluminum” in an ingredient name can raise red flags for some consumers, the form and usage context matter significantly. For typical topical applications, there is no substantial evidence of health risks - such as cancer, neurotoxicity, or systemic “aluminum overload.”

On a cellular level, it disrupts the cell membranes of microbes by poking holes that make the cell leak. This shuts down the chemical reactions the microbe needs to make energy so it can no longer survive.

Another perk of this ingredient is that it stays functional across a wide pH range (3-10).

You'll often see it paired with boosters like Ethylhexylglycerin; one study showed that a 1:9 ratio of Ethylhexylglycerin to Phenoxyethanol damages bacterial membranes as effectively as doubling the Phenoxyethanol concentration on its own.

Typical use concentrations range from 0.3-1% depending on the formula, and this ingredient is capped at 1% int the EU.

Safety-wise, the fear mongering does not hold up to the evidence. The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety and FDA consider it safe as a preservative at up to 1%, including for children of all ages.

Adverse systemic effects only showed up in animal studies at exposures roughly 200x higher than what people get from cosmetics. And despite its very widespread use, this ingredient is a rare sensitizer and allergic reactions are uncommon.

It is also used to make a product more thick.

Because it is not a free-fatty acid, this ingredient is fungal acne safe (there's nothing for Malassezia to feed on).

Its main job is chelation; this is a fancy word to say it grabs onto metal ions and neutralizes them. This is because even purified water in cosmetics contains trace amounts of metals that can cause big problems in a formula.

These trace metals can break down actives faster, cause discoloration, promote rancidity in oils, and make preservatives less effective. Trisodium EDTA binds to these metals and takes them out of the equation so your products can stay stable and effective for longer.

There's also an added bonus: by neutralizing the metals ions that bacteria need to thrive, this ingredient also acts as a preservative booster.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review has concluded this ingredient to be safe as used in cosmetic formulations. It is not considered an irritant, sensitizer, and is barely absorbed through the skin.

This ingredient is considered hypoallergenic and non-toxic. Cellulose Gum can be found in cosmetics, food, and other household goods such as paper products.

Industry-reported use ranges from 8% in rinse-off products and 2% in leave-on formulations.

As a humectant, it pulls water into the skin. But it's a pretty minor moisturizing ingredient compared to other humectants, like glycerin.

Interestingly, it can act as a mild penetration enhancer. One in vitro study on human skin found a 12% concentration upped the absorption of mometasone furoate (a medicinal ingredient used to treat inflammatory skin conditions) up to 7%.

This ingredient is typically used at levels of 0.1-10% depending on the role it's playing.

A patch test study on eczema patients didn't find a significant increase in irritation versus the control group, but the potential for irritation rises at higher concentrations.

Like other types of silica, this ingredient can be used to thicken a product. As an absorbent, it may be used to absorb extra water or help prevent clumping.

Although “aluminum” in an ingredient name can raise red flags for some consumers, the form and usage context matter significantly. For typical topical applications, there is no substantial evidence of health risks - such as cancer, neurotoxicity, or systemic “aluminum overload.”

Here's a myth worth busting: mineral filters are usually described as working by "reflecting" or "bouncing" UV off your skin.

That's mostly not true: when researchers actually measured it, ZO and Titanium Dioxide reflect only about 4-5% of UV (less than SPF 2 worth of protection).

The vast majority of the work (~95%) is done by absorption, similar to chemical UV filters. ZO is a semiconductor that absorbs UV photos through its energy band gap.

So the old "physical blocker vs. chemical absorber" framing is really an oversimplification.

Zinc Oxide is one of the most effective broad-spectrum UV filters out there. It protects across UVB, UVA2, and UVA1 with a flat, even absorption curve across the whole UVA-UVB range.

That uniform UVA coverage is its standout feature; titanium dioxide skews more toward UVB as its particle size drops so ZO gives more consistent and extended UVA protection.

It's also very photostable. As an inorganic oxide, ZO doesn't break down in sunlight the way some organic filters can, so it holds up over a day of wear.

This ingredient is gentle and soothing, making it go-to for sunscreens aimed at sensitive skin, rosacea, or ecezma-prone skin, babies, and children.

It's also unlikely to cause the "eye sting" that some sunscreen ingredients are known for, and regulatory agencies broadly consider it non-toxic and safe for topical use.

Beyond sun protection, ZO is also a recognized OTC skin protectant. It forms a breathable barrier that shields skin from moisture and irritation while supporting healing. This is why you'll see it as a classic active in diaper rash creams.

The only downside to ZO is that it can leave a visible white cast, especially on deeper skin tones. This is the main reason mineral sunscreens have historically felt less cosmetically elegant than chemical or hybrid formulas.

Zinc Oxide comes in both non-nano and nano forms. The dividing line is 100nm and anything under is classified as a nanomaterial by the EU.

The nano version scatters less visible light which cuts down white case and gives a lighter, more wearable texture.

Another thing worth understanding about formulation:

Uncoated ZO has some inherent photocatalytic activity. This just means it can generate reactive oxygen species under UV. It's exactly why cosmetic-grade ZO is almost always surface-coated; this coating suppresses that reactivity and improves how the powder disperses and feels.

A well-formulated coated ZO largely sidesteps this issue.

Zinc Oxide is commonly used anywhere from 10% up to the regulatory maximum in sunscreens (25%).

Mineral-only broad-spectrum products often land in the 15-25% range to hit higher SPF and UVA values. Keep in mind SPF performance depends heavily on particle size, dispersion, and the rest of the formula, and not just the percentage.

As an OTC skin protectant like diaper creams, ZO typically runs higher at roughly 10-40%.

This ingredient is generally easy to work with and doesn't photodegrade.

The only thing to know is that uncoated ZO can be a bit reactive in a formula.

Under UV, it can break down sensitive ingredients like other actives or UV filters. This is another reason coated versions are standard. ZO can also react with very acidic ingredients or throw off stability of some creams. A good formula will get around this with the right coatings and dispersion.

The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has concluded that ZO nanoparticles "can be considered to not pose any risk of adverse effects in humans after application on healthy, intact or sunburnt skin".

You might hear that ZO is "toxic"; this is because an in-vitro (test tube) study suggested micronized ZO had potential phototoxicity. In vivo (human) investigations have disputed this and the results have come back reassuring.

So does ZO penetrate skin? The short answer is no, not in any way that matters.

The most relevant evidence comes from real-world human studies: in one, volunteers applied ZO nanoparticle sunscreen hourly for six hours and daily for five days. The advanced imaging showed the particles stayed on the surface and never reached the living epidermis, and no cellular toxicity was found.

Other in-vivo and ex-vivo work agree; ZO nanoparticles don't cross the stratum corneum, even on flexed, massaged, or barrier-impaired skin.

A small amount of solubilized zinc ions can dissolve off the particles and enter the upper skin. But the quantities are tiny compared to the zinc already naturally present in your body, and studies haven't found this to cause local toxicity.

The sunscreen bans you've heard of (like Hawaii's) are aimed at two chemical filters, Oxybenzone and Octinoxate. ZO itself it not banned and is often recommended instead.

So far, there's no solid evidence that any form of ZO harms reefs. It is an ongoing and active area of study, and worth keeping an eye on.

If you're traveling somewhere with these rules, a non-nano mineral sunscreen is the safe bet.

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.

Synthetically created Ci 77491 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.