e.l.f. cosmetics Expert Liquid Liner

One thing worth noting: a controlled study found this ingredient applied under occlusion to acne-prone subjects increased microcomedones. Just keep in mind this was under occlusive conditions and don't reflect how most products are used day-to-day.

For most people, this is a well-tolerated and lightweight ingredient.

This ingredient may not be fungal acne safe because it is a fatty acid ester.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

As a preservative, it works by disrupting the membrane of microbial proteins. This helps keep bacteria and fungi from growing in your products.

The sensitization picture is actually quite assuring as well:of nearly 71,000 patients patch tested with benzyl alcohol, only 0.21% showed a positive reaction with most of them being weakly positive.

This led researchers to conclude that benzyl alcohol cannot be regarded as a significant contact allergen.

It is worth noting this ingredient is classified as one of the EU's regulated fragrance allergens and restricted to 1% in finished products.

Labels must also declare it in concentrations above 0.001% in leave-on products and 0.01% in rinse-off products.

At concentrations around 5%, localized redness and itching can appear as a direct irritant response and not as a true allergic reaction.

This ingredient is safe in cosmetics when formulated to be non-sensitizing and concentrations must not exceed 7.5 ppm in leave-on products / 15 ppm in rinse-off products.

Unfortunately, this ingredient has a well-documented sensitization story. Studies spanning several decades have shown this ingredient + MI to cause skin irritation and allergies.

The use of this ingredient varies around the world:

This just means this ingredient is most likely non-sensitizing in rinse-off products unless you've been diagnosed with a contact allergy to isothiazolinones.

Since then, numerous studies have shown this ingredient to cause contact dermatitis, or skin irritation.

The use of this ingredient varies around the world:

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 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.

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

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.

This dye is commonly used in foods, approved by both the FDA and EFSA.