Dove Exfoliating Body Scrub

Silica is often used for absorption and can help reduce shine when products are applied.

According to a manufacturer, it is stable in water-based formulations with a pH of 6-8. This ingredient is fully soluble in hot water and partially soluble in cold water.

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.

Being created from coconut oil means Cocamidopropyl Betaine is hydrating for the skin.

While Cocamidopropyl Betaine was believed to be an allergen, a study from 2012 disproved this. It found two compounds in unpure Cocamidopropyl Betaine to be the irritants: aminoamide and 3-dimethylaminopropylamine. High-grade and pure Cocamidopropyl Betaine did not induce allergic reactions during this study.

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.

The polysaccharides do most of the work: they bind water at the skin surface for a light, non-greasy hydration boost. And one of the polysaccharides, glycomannan, is linked to fibroblast stimulation + collagen synthesis. This is also why aloe has such a long track record in wound and burn healing.

This ingredient is also calming with anti-inflammatory and mild antimicrobial activity, making it a great pick for sensitive, irritated, or post-sun skin.

Realistic expectations matter though; the solid evidence is mostly limited to hydration, soothing, and wound support. Deeper claims about anti-aging or sun protection are not well backed, and science reviews note it does not prevent radiation-induced skin injury.

Because it plays well with almost everything, it's commonly used as a base alongside other actives like niacinamide or vitamin C.

Typical usage concentrations range from 0.5% (where hydration benefits already show up) all the way to 90%+ (where it replaces water as the main base).

The safety for this ingredient is well-establish as well. Overall, this is a great supporting ingredient for those who want a boost in hydration.

One of its most common jobs is acting as a pigment carrier and dispersant.

Alumina platelets are often blended with inorganic sunscreens like Titanium Dioxide (or with colorants) and then coated with a silicone such as Triethoxycaprylylsilane so the pigment spreads evenly and smoothly.

In makeup, it can also double as a light-diffusing powder or oil absorber to keep formulas from looking greasy.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel has concluded alumina to be safe in present practices of use and concentration.

They note it's a stable, oxidized compound and scientific research has failed to establish links to health issues.

Concentrations vary depending on the product:

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.

Though it can't kill microbes on its own, it works as a good supporting agent when combined with other preservatives like Phenoxyethanol or 1,2-Hexanediol.

This ingredient naturally occurs as piceol in Norwegian spruce needles (~0.4-1.1% dry weight and in cloudberries). Though the cosmetic-grade material is synthesized for purity and consistency.

You'll usually see it used at low levels and suppliers recommend up to 1% added to a water phase.

Safety testing was done at concentrations like 0.05% in SPF products and 0.5% in a Human Repeated Insult Patch Test. The safety evidence is assuring; this ingredient is safe for cosmetics in current use and also holds safety status as a food flavoring as well.

An honest caveat: the "soothing" and "anti-inflammatory" claims come mostly from supplier marketing rather than published clinical trials. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review's own literature search found no useful efficacy studies on this ingredient.

So the antioxidant and preservative-boosting roles are the well supported ones while the calming benefit is plausible but thinly evidenced.

Overall, this is a well-tolerated, low-irritation multitasker that quietly helps a formula stay fresh and stable.

Its similarity to our skin's natural oils makes it a great emollient. Emollients help soften and soothe our skin by creating a barrier on top. This barrier helps trap moisture in, keeping skin hydrated.

It is created using either the hydrogenation or transesterification processes on jojoba oil.

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. Even though "fungal acne" has the word "acne" in it, they are completely different. Regular acne is driven by a bacteria called Cutibacterium acnes, clogged pores, and excess oil. Fungal acne isn't really acne; it's caused by an overgrowth of a yeast called Malassezia that already lives on everyone's skin. Because one is bacterial and the other is fungal, they respond to different ingredients.

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.

Sodium benzoate works as a preservative by inhibiting the growth of bacteria inside of cells. It prevents the cell from fermenting a type of sugar using an enzyme called phosphofructokinase.

It is the salt of benzoic acid. Foods containing sodium benzoate include soda, salad dressings, condiments, fruit juices, wines, and snack foods.

Studies for using ascorbic acid and sodium benzoate in cosmetics are lacking, especially in skincare routines with multiple steps.

We always recommend speaking with a professional, such as a dermatologist, if you have any concerns.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Limonene acts as an antioxidant, meaning it helps neutralize free radicals.

When exposed to air, oxidized limonene may sensitize the skin. Because of this, limonene is often avoided by people with sensitive skin.

The term '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.

This ingredient has a scent that is floral, spicy tropical, and citrus-like.

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.

Ci 77891 is commonly found in sunscreens due to its ability to block UV rays.