DRMTLGY Luminous Eye Corrector SPF 41

Photostabilizers help stabilize UV-filters and prevents them from degrading quickly.

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.

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%.

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 highest reported concentration is about 24% in eye makeup but most suppliers recommend a level below 10%.

It has a clean track record for safety and found to be non-irritating.

Because it is an ester of a C18 fatty acid, Malassezia can potentially metabolize it (it sits in the C11-24 range that Malassezia likes). Therefore, this ingredient may not be fungal acne safe.

Besides holding formulas together, it also leaves a silky and lightweight feel on skin without the greasiness. A manufacturer also claims it can help with the controlled release of active ingredients.

The CIR Expert Panel found this ingredient to not be sensitizing in concentrations up to 15% in human maximazation testing and dimethicone-based compounds were not comedogenic.

It has a high molecular weight well above 1,000 g/mol which means it limits meaningful skin penetration.

A 2019 study specifically tested this ingredient and found no observable Malassezia growth in its presence.

Depending on the concentration, it can drastically change the texture of a product from pasty solid (like lipstick) to sprayable liquid.

The CIR Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety has concluded this ingredient to be safe in cosmetics. The highest reported use concentration is 14.2% in lipsticks.

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.

Once applied, this ingredient dries down quickly and leaves a dry, silky finish behind. This also helps improve spreadability and texture.

This ingredient has an excellent safety-record and is non-irritating.

Typical concentrations for cosmetics range from 0.5-62%.

Research on Malassezia growth found no growth on fatty acid esters with chain lengths shorter than 12 carbons (it prefers C11-24).

Since Coco-Caprylate/Caprate is built on C8 and C10 fatty acids, it is out of the range that Malassezia metabolizes, and therefore safe for fungal acne.

Human patch tests with a facial lotion containing 1% of this ingredient found no sensitization.

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.

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

Lycopene is a potent antioxidant. Besides helping to protect your skin against free-radical molecules, it also helps soothe the skin. Lycopene gives watermelon the distinct red color.

According to a manufacturer, the glucuronic acid of this ingredient promotes the presence of hyaluronic acid in the middle layer of skin to keep that layer sufficiently hydrated.

Last, the phytochemicals found in apples are strong antioxidants. These antioxidants help with anti-aging as they protect your skin cells against oxidative damage.

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.

High percentages of Sodium Lactate can have an exfoliating effect.

Fun fact: Sodium Lactate is produced from fermented sugar.

As a cosmetic ingredient, it grabs water and holds it in the upper layers of skin to smooth roughness and ease dehydration.

There's some clinical support for the NMF approach with a study showing that a cream built to mimic the skin's NMF significantly boosted hydration.

Safety-wise, this ingredient non-irritating, non-comedogenic, and non-phototoxic in testing, with minimal skin absorption.

It also works really well with other hydrators like glycerin or hyaluronic acid, and typical usage is somewhere between 0.2-4%.

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.

A perk of this ingredient is that it leaves skin feeling soft and silky after rinsing. This is why you'll even see it in baby washes.

Another perk?
The lauric acid backbone gives it mild antimicrobial activity and lauric acid itself has been shown to suppress acne-causing bacteria in lab studies.

In 2023, scientists took a close look at how SLL behaves and found it can break apart the fatty outer layers of cells. This is basically why it cleans well and can fight off certain microbes.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel has reviewed it and concluded it's safe as used.

A 2017 survey showed concentrations up to 10% are used in rinse-off cleansers and roughly 0.5-5% being typical in skincare.

Animal and reconstructed-skin testing found it to be non-irritating at 10%, and it's well tolerated even on sensitive skin. The only caveat is to patch test if you have a lactic acid allergy.

As a lactylate salt used at low co-emulsifier concentrations, this ingredient is less likely to break down and release free lauric acid on skin. This ingredient is fungal acne safe.

It also needs to be neutralized to actually thicken, and because it is a large molecule, it doesn't really penetrate the skin barrier.

Allergy-wise, the risk is very low. Clinical studies show carbomers have low potential for skin irritation/sensitization even at concentrations up to 100%.

A 2024 UK study patch-tested 1,302 patients and found true allergy to the parent group of carbomer to be rare with no confirmed relevant reactions.

This ceramide works by slotting into gaps within the stratum corneum's lipid matrix to limit trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL) and shield the skin against external irritants.

A study with 312 patients found that using a ceramide-containing routine for 4 weeks reduced the severity of atopic dermatitis by over 61%.

Another clinical study in subjects aged 60 and older found that a ceramide body wash and moisturizer improved skin dryness and itchy skin in 15 days.

Overall, ceramides are considered non-irritating and safety tests have found little to no observable adverse effects from using this ingredient.

Ceramide NP is usually sourced from plants (like soybean or rice bran), or produced synthetically.

It's designed to mimic the collagen-stimulating activity in your skin by copying a snippet of one of your skin's own matrix proteins. This nudges fibroblasts into making more collagen while inhibiting the enzyme that breaks down skin protein.

The manufacturer's in vivo study of 45 volunteers found 1% and 2.5% reduced the appearance of wrinkles by 7% and 12% respectively, after using it twice daily for 84 days.

This is in the expected range for peptides; they're slow and cumulative actives and not overnight fixers.

Typical use levels range from 1-3% and this ingredient gets along with pretty much everything.

On the fungal acne front:
Although palmitic acid sits in the chain length that Malassezia can feed on, this ingredient has it locked in an amine bond. This makes it hard for Malassezia to access as a source of food, and therefore fungal acne safe.

The skin's ability to produce ceramides gets disrupted in skin conditions like eczema. This in turn weakens the skin barrier and applying ceramides topically has been shown to replenish what's been lost to restore barrier function.

Most of the studies with Ceramide AP test it as part of a multi-ceramide complex; studies reinforce ceramide AP's role in rebalancing ceramides in skin and improving skin hydration.

Studies show products formulated with NMF ingredients help strengthen our skin's barrier. Having a healthy skin barrier reduces irritation and increases hydration. Our skin barrier is responsible for having plump and firm skin. It also helps protect our skin against infection, allergies, and inflammation.

Fun fact: Phytosphingosine is abundant in plants and fungi.

More ingredients that help boost collagen in skin:

This is a great ingredient for dry, compromised, or aging skin; our skin starts to produce less cholesterol with age.

Research shows cholesterol works best in combination with ceramides and fatty acids, the other two major components in your skin barrier.

Cholesterol is also a well-establish penetration enhancer and can help other actives absorb more effectively.

Cosmetic-grade cholesterol is usually derived from lanolin but plant and synthetic options also exist. We recommend reaching out to the brand if you have questions about their source of cholesterol.

The common safety discussion around this ingredient involves a manufacturing byproduct called 1,4-dioxane.

Trace amounts can form during production but the EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has concluded that levels at/below 10 ppm in finished products are safe (commercial products consistently fall within acceptable margins).

True allergic reactions are uncommon and the CIR Expert Panel has confirmed this ingredient to be safe as used in cosmetics.

Because it is derived from lauric acid, it may not be fungal acne safe.

Xanthan gum is a pretty common and great ingredient. It is a natural, non-toxic, non-irritating ingredient that is also commonly used in food products.

Once there, it acts as a matrikine, a signaling peptide that prompts fibroblasts to produce more collagen, fibronectin, and hyaluronic acid.

In vitro studies show it can boost collagen production in skin cells even when UV-damaged skin samples were treated with it at a tiny concentration (it almost fully restored dermal collagen at 5ppm). It achieved this at 100x lower concentration than retinoic acid, which needed 500 ppm to do the same thing.

Human clinical data is promising, but modest:

A study of 23 female volunteers found a small but statistically significant increase (~4%) in skin thickness after treatment at 4 ppm.

A separate small trial of 15 women showed statistically significant reductions in wrinkle length, depth, and skin roughness after applying it twice daily for four weeks.

You'll likely see Pal-GHK paired with Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7 as part of the Matrixyl 3000 complex.

Fungal acne note:
Usually a palmitic acid component can feed Malassezia in unbound form, but here is is covalently bonded to the peptide. This means it is very difficult for Malassezia to access, and therefore very unlikely to cause fungal acne.

This ingredient calms down a specific inflammation signal in your skin cells (called IL-6). When left unchecked, this signal triggers enzymes that break down collagen and elastin.

Clinical testing showed statistically significant improvements in:

Studies also found the more of this ingredient used, the more your skin produces Collagen I, fibronectin, and hyaluronic acid.

You'll likely see this ingredient paired with Palmitoyl Tripeptide-1 in the well-known Matrixyl 3000 complex for enhanced anti-aging effects.

A 3% concentration applied twice daily for two months showed meaningful skin rejuvenation results in clinical panels.

Fungal acne note:
Usually a palmitic acid component can feed Malassezia in unbound form, but here is is covalently bonded to the peptide. This means it is very difficult for Malassezia to access, and therefore very unlikely to cause fungal acne.

EOP stands for a linked Ester fatty acid, a linked Omega hydroxy fatty acid, and the Phytosphingosine base.

What makes Ceramide EOP special is its ultra-long fatty acid chain; this unique structure allows it to bridge the lipid layers in your skin barrier to prevent water loss (something no other ceramide can do).

Low levels of Ceramide EOP have been found in people with eczema and psoriasis.

Using it together with other ceramides, cholesterol, and linoleic acid have been shown to meaningfully improve hydration and reduce water loss.

In one clinical study, a regimen using Ceramide EOP, NP, and AP led to significant symptom improvements in patients with eczema, psoriasis, and dry skin in just 4 weeks.

You'll usually see concentrations between 0.1-0.5% in formulations. Overall, this is a well-tolerated and safe ingredient for cosmetic use.

Synthetically created CI 77492 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.

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.

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.