Covergirl Trublend Hydrating Foundation

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.

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

This is due to how structurally similar it is to what your skin already produces.

Though it is mostly an emollient that helps soften and hydrate skin, it also has some humectant and occlusive action. Humectants help the skin retain moisture while occlusives seal it in, making squalane a triple-threat moisturizer.

Research shows it has antioxidant capabilities that help protect against stressors like UV exposure, specifically UVA induced oxidative stress. This study also found that it supports collagen biosynthesis in human dermal fibroblasts.

No clinical study has reported significant adverse effects and irritation reactions are very rare from this ingredient (even at 100% concentration).

Overall, it's a fantastic ingredient for hydration and is suitable for all skin types.

This depends on the source. Squalane can be derived from both plants and animals. Most squalane used in skincare comes from plants.

Please note: the source of squalane is only known if disclosed by the brand. We recommend reaching out to the brand if you have any questions about their squalane.

Read more about squalene with an "e".

Though squalane is often called an oil, it’s technically not one. It is a hydrocarbon, meaning it is only made of carbon and hydrogen. True oils are triglycerides and made of fatty acids and glycerol.

The term “oil-free” isn’t regulated so companies can define it however they want. Some exclude all oils, while others just avoid mineral oil or comedogenic oils.

Squalane has a comedogenic rating of 1 from the original 1972 study that tested raw ingredients under occlusion on rabbit ears. This system is not standardized or peer-reviewed, and using the raw ingredients is very different from how diluted cosmetic formulations are used on human skin.

A comedogenic rating of 1 means it is "unlikely to clog pores" according to the original rating system.

The overall formula of a product matters more than the individual ingredients on whether or not it will cause clogged pores.

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.

Though this ingredient works well with most skin types, some people with sensitive skin may experience a reaction such as allergic rashes, closed comedones, or itchiness.

This is also one of the most heavily studied preservatives out there and major regulatory bodies have repeatedly given it the green light.

In 2023, the EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) confirmed that this ingredient is safe up to 0.4% on its own, of up to 0.8% when mixed with other paraben esters.

Here's the science behind the noise behind parabens/hormones as well:

Methylparaben shows very weak estrogen-like activity in vitro tests (more than 1,000x weaker than your body's own estradiol). In vivo (live-organism) studies don't support a meaningful endocrine-disrupting effect either.

You get a stronger estrogenic effect from eating tofu, actually.

It's also a low sensitizer and allergic reactions are uncommon; they usually happen on damage or broken skin.

There is a caveat: France has proposed to formally re-examine its endocrine classification in 2025 so the regulatory conversation isn't fully closed as of yet.

But as it stands today, this ingredient is considered safe at permitted levels.

It "wraps" these ingredients in a form of slippery jacket so they disperse more evenly in oils, glide better on skin, and stick longer without smudging.

Human repeat insult patch tests on foundations containing this ingredient found no sensitization concerns.

Since isostearic acid is a C18 fatty acid, it falls within the carbon chain length that Malassezia can potentially metabolize. This is why this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

You'll likely see it paired with methylparaben to cover the full range (including gram-negative bacteria).

This ingredient is effective at low concentrations (~0.2-0.5%) and stable across a wide pH range (4.5-7.5 pH). It's effectiveness drops off above pH 8 and it can lose potency when combined with non-ionic surfactants like polysorbate 80 due to micellization.

The regulatory bodies have concluded this ingredient to be safe as used in cosmetics. The EU has capped it at 0.14% and combined parabens are not to exceed 0.8%.

While parabens do cross the stratum corneum, only about 1% remains for absorption into the body. This is because most of it is metabolized within living skin.

In this case, the 60 comes from reacting 60 units of ethylene oxide with sorbitan.

Polysorbates are commonly used in medicine and foods.

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.

In a 24 hour occlusive patch test on 56 subjects, 10% sorbitan isostearate was completely non-irritating. Most formulas use less than 10%.

Because it's a fatty acid ester, it may not be fungal acne safe since the Malassezia yeast can utilize it as a nutrient source.

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.

A 2021 paper looked at skincare formulations containing iron oxides and found that they reduced transmission of blue light when measured optically. In simple terms, the pigment particles helped block or scatter part of the visible light spectrum in lab testing and the authors suggest this could translate into better protection against blue-light-related skin effects.

There is also clinical and experimental research showing that tinted products containing iron oxides can reduce visible light-induced pigmentation:

Please note, whether a product reduces visible or blue light depends on things like:

In the EU's CosIng database, iron oxides are only listed as a colorant. CosIng groups ingredients by their main cosmetic role, such as colorant, preservative, or UV filter.

Though studies say iron oxides can "attenuate blue light", they're describing an optical property and not an officially recognized cosmetic function.

So CosIng isn’t contradicting the research. It’s just classifying iron oxides by what they officially are: pigments that add color.